BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Transport for London Bill [lords]: Revival Motion

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the Transport for London Bill [Lords], which was originally introduced in the House of Lords in Session 2010-12 on 24 January 2011, may have leave to proceed with the Bill in the current Session according to the provisions of Standing Order 188B (Revival of Bills).—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Tuesday 10 September.

Review of Possible Miscarriages of Justice

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of a Paper, entitled Review of Possible Miscarriages of Justice: Impact of Undisclosed Undercover Police Activity on the Safety of Convictions, dated 16 July 2015.—(Charlie Elphicke.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cross-channel Services

Damian Collins: What discussions he has had with the French authorities on preventing disruption to cross-channel services from the port of Dover and channel tunnel in summer 2015.

Robert Goodwill: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have had regular contact with Alain Vidalies, the French Transport Minister, and his predecessor Frédéric Cuvillier, both in the run up to and during the current dispute.

Damian Collins: Operation Stack has been in force on the Kent motorways for 14 of the past 28 days, closing the M20 and causing chaos on Kent’s roads. What consideration is the Minister giving at the moment to emergency measures that can be brought in this summer if there are further delays, to alleviate the pressure on the people of Kent and keep our roads open?

Robert Goodwill: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The road situation in Kent has been intolerable for many local people, although it has to be said that because of Operation Stack we have managed to keep the coaches and tourist traffic flowing. A working group led by Kent County Council is looking at all these issues, considering short and long-term mitigation of the problem.

Rob Flello: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	I am pleased to hear that the Minister is in regular dialogue with his French counterparts, but given that the gangs of people traffickers particularly change their tactics constantly, what measures are being discussed to resolve the problem of traffickers simply moving further away from Calais to attack lorry drivers and get into their vehicles, in order to circumvent the steps that have been taken at Calais?

Robert Goodwill: The Home Secretary made a statement on this problem on 14 July, and I know that measures are being put in place, including fencing, at Coquelles to try to improve the situation. I spoke yesterday to my opposite number in the Republic of Ireland, who expressed the very same fears about lorry drivers being put at risk by migrants, who may engage in aggressive tactics.

Helen Whately: I thank the Minister for his update on the action to try to avoid the continuation of Operation Stack. As my fellow Kent MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), has said, it is causing untold disruption and misery to local people as well as to lorry drivers. Does the Minister consider it an option to continue Operation Stack during the summer? For my constituents, an alternative solution as soon as possible really is a priority.

Robert Goodwill: We continue to keep all options under review. I know that it has been suggested that Manston airfield may be used to store trucks, although that is 43 miles from Dover. One or two issues that can be addressed more urgently include queue-jumping. Queue-jumpers cause congestion on local roads and they also cause problems when they get to the front of the queue, when there is usually an altercation before they are sent back. We are looking at how we can make Operation Stack work more efficiently, but looking at alternatives too.

Jim Shannon: Tourists going to France are being inconvenienced by delays. Lorry drivers are accosted by migrants in great numbers. There is clearly a lack of confidence in the cross-channel routes at this moment in time. What can the Minister do to reassure tourists and lorry drivers that they can cross the channel without any bother whatsoever?

Robert Goodwill: Obviously, this is a problem on the other side of the channel, of which the French authorities are all too well aware. We anticipate that it will be a continuing problem, but it is of course made worse by the industrial action in Calais. Although Calais is open, it still is not operating at full capacity. DFDS ferries are not able to use the port, and two of the five berths at Calais are occupied by striking workers.

Motorways

Iain Stewart: When he last met the chief executive of Highways England to discuss its programme of repairing and upgrading the motorway network.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government have an ambitious £15.2 billion plan to triple annual spending on England’s motorways and major A roads by the end of the decade, to improve capacity and condition as set out in the road investment strategy. I recently met Jim O’Sullivan, who was appointed chief executive of Highways England at the beginning of July, and there will of course be further meetings between us and with the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones).

Iain Stewart: I congratulate the Government on that long-term investment strategy, which will inevitably entail roadworks. Will the Secretary of State ask Highways England to review its increasing and annoying tendency to cone off vast stretches of motorway and install average speed cameras, sometimes for years at a time, when work is happening only in a very small area?

Patrick McLoughlin: Of course, road improvements cannot take place without some disruption to the motorist, but I well understand the frustration that many people who use the M1 feel about the length of roadway that is currently under repair. I have already taken that up with the chief executive.

Jonathan Reynolds: May I say that this is a superb question. One way to upgrade a motorway such as the M62 would be to improve existing road links between the north-west and Yorkshire. The Minister recently wrote to me and other affected MPs to inform us of the new strategic road study into a possible tunnel under the Peak district. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that would be in addition to the bypass scheme that has been announced for the Mottram in Longdendale area of my constituency, not a replacement for it, and that the Government’s vision is that the two schemes can be complementary?

Patrick McLoughlin: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman’s thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), who used to be my Parliamentary Private Secretary, for his superb question, which rightly exposes the huge road investment that the Government are taking forward.
	The study that the hon. Gentleman refers to is being done by Colin Matthews. I await his report, and it is in addition to the scheme that has already been announced.

Stephen Hammond: The Chancellor’s Budget last week confirmed the road investment strategy. How many extra miles of motorway and trunk road will it mean?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am reliably informed by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) that it entails 1,300 more miles.

Drew Hendry: The A1 north of Newcastle has significant importance for freight and other strategic traffic travelling between Newcastle and Edinburgh. In May 2010, in recognition of the importance of connectivity with Edinburgh, the Government announced that it would be designated a route of strategic national importance. With that in mind, will the Secretary of State advise us of what investment has been made in the A1, and will he provide details of any planned future improvements?

Patrick McLoughlin: Much to the credit of the campaign by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mrs Trevelyan), we have announced a number of road improvements to the A1. If the hon. Gentleman were to drive around Newcastle at the moment, he would see the extensive work around the Lobley Hill junction, which is a huge investment that will improve flow around Newcastle. Further works on the A1 are planned.

David Nuttall: Are the works to improve the M60 and M62 around Greater Manchester on track to be completed on time?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, as far as I am aware, they are on track. We are delivering the first increase in trans-Pennine motorway capacity since 1971 by upgrading the M62 to a smart motorway. I realise that there is inconvenience for motorists while upgrades take place, but the work is part of the Government’s investment not just in the north but right across this country’s road infrastructure, which was so badly neglected for 13 years.

Rail Electrification

Dan Jarvis: What recent assessment he has made of Network Rail’s progress in delivering the rail electrification programme.

Kate Green: What recent assessment he has made of Network Rail’s progress in delivering the rail electrification programme.

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said in my statement, important aspects of Network Rail’s investment programme are costing more and taking longer. That is why I have asked Sir Peter Hendy, the new chair of Network Rail, to develop proposals for how the rail upgrade programme will be carried out.

Dan Jarvis: Many of my constituents will now have to put up with slower services because of the Government’s decision to halt the electrification of the midland main line. It was revealed this week that in March, Network Rail agreed that joint decisions with the Department for Transport to defer upgrades would be required. Does that not show that Ministers must have known that the upgrades would be shelved, even though they were promising the public that they would be delivered?

Patrick McLoughlin: I welcome the hon. Gentleman asking what I think is his first Transport question in the more than two and half years since I became Secretary of State. I am glad that he is taking an interest in the railway that he has not taken before.
	The train services in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency are operated by Northern, and we will increase overall capacity between Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield by 36% by the end of 2019, providing an extra 200 services each weekday. We will also increase Northern’s fleet size by 10% in 2015, delivering an additional 87 carriages—all good news for his constituents, and I am sorry that he looks on the negative side.

Kate Green: The delay in the electrification of the trans-Pennine line means delay in the release of rolling stock to replace the clapped-out Pacers endured by commuters in my constituency. How long will the pause last, and how long do they have to wait for an improvement in the quality of their journeys?

Patrick McLoughlin: We have electrified the track between Liverpool and Manchester, replacing the two-car diesel trains with four-car electric trains from April 2015. I would have thought that the hon. Lady would welcome that and, if not, that she would at least welcome the increase in the fleet size of Northern trains by 10% in 2015, delivering an extra 87 carriages. We will double the services between Manchester Victoria and Liverpool, Macclesfield, Chester, Bolton and Stockport by the end of 2017—more done to upgrade those sections of rail in the past five years than was achieved in the 13 years her party was in government.

Amanda Milling: As a former resident of Cannock, my right hon. Friend will be well aware of the importance of the Chase line electrification to residents and businesses in my constituency. Will he work with me to minimise any potential delays to the completion of the project?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is quite right: I know that line incredibly well. It goes from Rugeley to Hednesford, then to Cannock and on to Walsall and Birmingham. As a member of Cannock Chase District Council, I campaigned for the line to be reopened and I am pleased that that happened in 1989. I am also pleased to confirm that as part of the electrification of that line, the new bridges at Hednesford, Stafford Lane and Cannock are already in place. The investment is £78.2 million and it is on target to be finished in December 2017.

Nigel Mills: The Secretary of State will know of the great disappointment across the east midlands at the pause in the electrification of the midland main line. While we are waiting for a final decision on that, can he update the House on when we might see the implementation of the other improvements on the line that are still in the plan?

Patrick McLoughlin: Those improvements are still going on and, as I said at the time of the statement, the most important thing is to achieve some of the line-speed improvements to allow us to operate six trains an hour from St Pancras, as opposed to the five trains per hour at present. That work is going on as we speak.

Michael Dugher: On 25 June, just seven weeks after the election, the Secretary of State announced that the Government were shelving vital electrification upgrades in the midlands and north—
	projects that Ministers repeatedly promised to deliver before and during the general election. Will the Secretary of State say categorically when he first became aware that Network Rail thought a decision would have to be made on the future of those upgrades? Was it before or after the election?

Patrick McLoughlin: It is worth noting that when I made the statement the shadow Secretary of State said that it had been well known that the electrification programme was in some trouble. If so, it is interesting that he never asked a question on it at any Transport Questions Time. The first time I was told that a pause was needed was a week before I made the statement to the House.

Michael Dugher: That is not an answer to my question. The Secretary of State says that he was in the dark, but we know that the Government were warned by the rail regulator in November last year, and by the Transport Committee in January, that costs were escalating and big rail projects such as those were in trouble. The chief executive of Network Rail, Mark Carne said:
	“People knew perfectly well there were high levels of uncertainty about this, it was widely flagged at the time, and it would not be fair for people to forget that.”
	I wonder who he was referring to. Ministers knew all along that they were going to shelve those projects, but they continued to con the public. It is completely shabby. Should not the Government now live up to their election promises, reinstate the electrification work and not pull the plug on those vital upgrades for the north and midlands?

Patrick McLoughlin: The last time a major upgrade was done by the Labour party, it set out as a £2 billion scheme and ended as a £12 billion scheme—and then was, I think, scaled back to a £9 billion scheme. It would be wrong of me, therefore, to say exactly what the future course of action will be until I have Sir Peter Hendy’s report—he starts work today. However, I am committed to seeing the electrification as laid out, and to the 850 miles that we will be putting in place over this period of electrification, as opposed to the 10 miles of electrification that the last Labour Government put in place in their full 13 years.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State ensure that the pre-electrification line-speed improvements on the midland main line, which will be hugely welcomed and increase the number of trains out of St Pancras from five to six an hour, will have the knock-on effect of reinstating the half-hourly service northwards from Kettering which was taken away by the last Labour Government?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend has been forceful in that campaign, and I will certainly look at whether those opportunities will arise as a result of what I hope will be the increase in frequency of services between St Pancras and the midlands.

Louise Ellman: The major question mark over the delivery of rail electrification as promised has rung alarm bells for the northern powerhouse, but what does it mean for One
	North, the plan worked out by local authorities right across the region to integrate road and rail transport across the Pennines?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am appearing before the hon. Lady and her Select Committee on Monday afternoon, where I am sure we will go into a much deeper dive on those points.
	I did not manage to finish my answer to the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Barnsley East (Michael Dugher). It is worth pointing out that I did say in March and in January, when I was before the Transport Committee, that there were some problems with some aspects of the electrification of the northern Pennine line, and that is why, when the new franchise was issued, it mentioned diesel trains—[Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker, these are very big questions and I am trying to be as open as possible with the House. I realise it is frustrating that these responses are so long.

Roads: Worcestershire

Robin Walker: What plans his Department has to relieve congestion and support growth through investment in roads in Worcestershire.

Andrew Jones: Tackling congestion and supporting local economic growth are key priorities for this Government, and we have plans for significant investment in Worcestershire’s road infrastructure to deliver those goals. This includes over £100 million of funding to improve local roads, and a number of upgrades to the M5 in Worcestershire.

Robin Walker: I am very grateful to the Minister for that answer and, indeed, for his response to my recent Westminster Hall debate on the Carrington bridge and Worcester southern link. He will be aware that the Department classifies the southern link as a local road, but in fact it has enormous strategic importance, linking Worcestershire to Herefordshire, and upgrades to it have the support of the Worcestershire local enterprise partnership and the Marches local enterprise partnership, as well as of a large number of local authorities. Will he therefore take into account the strategic importance of that road in any decisions about funding?

Andrew Jones: I do indeed recognise the importance of the A4440 and the Carrington bridge. It is of clear strategic importance to both counties, a point recognised by the county council, by the local enterprise partnership and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has visited it personally. That is why we have confirmed we will work with the county council to determine how further stages of the proposal can be taken forward.

Jake Berry: rose—

Sammy Wilson: rose—

Mr Speaker: No, no. Rossendale and Darwen and Antrim are a very long way from Worcestershire. This question is about Worcestershire. We will move on.

Rail Electrification: Northern Powerhouse

Rachael Maskell: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the cessation of work on the electrification of the trans-Pennine route and the midland main line on the northern powerhouse initiative.

Jeff Smith: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the cessation of work on the electrification of the trans-Pennine route and the midland main line on the northern powerhouse initiative.

Liz McInnes: What assessment he has made of the potential effect of the cessation of work on the electrification of the trans-Pennine route and the midland main line on the northern powerhouse initiative.

Patrick McLoughlin: Rail services in the north, including trans-Pennine, will see a massive boost from the new franchises that come into effect in April 2016—including a 36% increase in peak capacity into Leeds and Manchester. We are developing plans for even better trans-Pennine links, including electrification, as part of the northern powerhouse.

Rachael Maskell: The challenge with capacity and the slow pace of the TransPennine—so-called—Express, and of the midland main line, have a real impact on York’s economy. Can the Secretary of State say when the modernisation and electrification work will now begin, and when it is due to be completed, so we can be confident that the work has not hit the buffers?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am very sorry that the hon. Lady cannot welcome the £2.7 billion of investment in Intercity Express, which will mean 65 trains, in five- and nine-carriage formations, introduced and serving her area from 2018 and a 28% increase in morning peak-time seats into King’s Cross. The new Northern and TransPennine Express franchises will operate fast, high-quality, inter-urban commuter services with more capacity, and improved local services—all with a strong focus on serving their customers well: more achievements, as opposed to the terrible franchise that the Labour Government re-launched in 2004, based on nil growth for the northern area.

Jeff Smith: In February, the Secretary of State wrote:
	“A transformation in transport connectivity between the cities of the north is vital to realising their potential to become a ‘northern powerhouse’ for the UK’s economy.”—[Official Report, 27 February 2015; Vol. 593, c. 33WS.]
	Now that the project has been postponed indefinitely, will he tell the House how we can build a northern house when the north has been left powerless?

Patrick McLoughlin: The people who are talking the north down are those resentful of the improvements we have made. They are resentful and bitter about it. We have already electrified the track between Liverpool and Manchester, replacing two-car diesel trains with four-car electric trains from April 2015. That is just one of the many projects under way to re-energise the
	northern powerhouse and provide the opportunities I talked about, and we are not backing away from them. It is the Labour party that regrets that it never had the foresight to bring them into operation when it had the opportunity.

Liz McInnes: My hon. Friends are asking so many questions about the northern powerhouse that it has become more of a northern puzzlehouse. Will the Secretary of State confirm that plans were already in place to shelve the electrification project in the midlands and the north before the election, and does he agree that this amounts to nothing more or less than a cynical betrayal of voters?

Patrick McLoughlin: No.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear that electrification of the line will happen in the future. Does he agree that the hundreds of millions of pounds of investment in Kirkstall Forge and Apperley Bridge stations and the southern access at these stations shows that the Government have put their money where their mouth is? Does it not also show that, unlike Labour, which in government took £350 million out of the city of Leeds to spend on Crossrail—under a Labour council and with the support of all eight Labour MPs for the city—this Government are investing in the north and committed to the northern powerhouse?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I visited the site he refers to with him not so long ago. [Interruption.] No, it was after the election actually. I am also pleased to say that our investment in Leeds station to provide a new access will be very important for that station.

Julian Sturdy: While welcoming the huge investment in rail services by this Government over the past five years, may I ask the Secretary of State what implications the pause—I stress the word pause—might have for the York-Harrogate-Leeds line electrification ambition and the important future links with Leeds Bradford airport?

Patrick McLoughlin: My hon. Friend is right to point out our ambitious programme for the rail industry in this country. Many people have commented that there has never been as much investment in the rail industry as set out by the Government over control period 5. That said, the taxpayer, as well as the travelling public, would want us to get best value for money from our investment, and we will want to consider the points he makes when it comes to CP6.

Jason McCartney: The trans-Pennine rail route goes through Slaithwaite and Marsden in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State confirm when he expects Sir Peter Hendy to report back about the pause on electrification, and will he take this opportunity to debunk the myth going around that the Pacers will be replaced by refurbished tube trains, which obviously is not true?

Patrick McLoughlin: I can certainly debunk that. It was made clear that once we got rid of the Pacers, they would be replaced by new trains, and that is what is in the invitation to tender, which is being looked at as far
	as the returns back to the Department for Transport are concerned. I hope to have more to say about that before the end of the year. This is a pause, and I am very much looking forward to Sir Peter’s report. It is his first day today, and I will be finding out shortly when he intends to give me that report.

Lilian Greenwood: Network Rail knew that northern powerhouse projects would be paused in March. Either the Secretary of State was told before the election that decisions would have to be made in June, or he was not, which means that one of two men must be guilty of abject negligence and failing to admit the truth to voters—the chief executive of Network Rail or the Secretary of State. Which one is it?

Patrick McLoughlin: I told the hon. Lady when I was asked about giving a pause, and that is when I came to the House. Mark Carne has been doing a fantastic job trying to upgrade the railway while at the same time delivering a railway service for the passenger, which is very important. He described it as “open-heart surgery”. I pointed out when I went before the Select Committee back in March that there were problems with trans-Pennine electrification. That is why the ITT for Northern Rail was deliberately worded so that diesel trains would be in service on that particular line, because it was thought that electrification might have to slip.

EU Port Regulations

Stephen Kinnock: What recent discussions he has had on the proposed EU port services regulation.

Robert Goodwill: I represented the UK at Transport Council when this was discussed last October. I have also met the European Parliament rapporteur, the hon. Gentleman’s socialist colleague, Knut Fleckenstein. My most recent discussions were on Wednesday this week at the all-party maritime and ports group chaired by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick).

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the Minister for that answer. The previous shipping Minister indicated that the Government would be able to use domestic regulation to counter these regulations if they were passed in Europe, but the details of how it would be done remain unclear. Will the Minister reassure us that he has a clear plan of action to protect the UK’s interests and block any regulations that damage port business and threaten workers’ interests in my constituency?

Robert Goodwill: Our position is quite clear: competition between ports is the best way to ensure efficient operation within them. I am pleased that the general approach is better than the Commission’s original proposal. We have the competitive market exemption and more discretion on issues such as pilotage. I would certainly be happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss particular issues affecting Port Talbot, which is one of our most important ports.

Sammy Wilson: What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Regional Development in Northern Ireland and what representations
	has he had from Northern Ireland ports about these regulations? Can he give an assurance that ports will be prevented from having to disclose the commercial information that these regulations will require so that the commercial operations can remain?

Robert Goodwill: I had unanimous support for our position that this is designed to fix a problem that we do not have in the United Kingdom. However, there are problems in other European ports, and cross-channel business and business across other seaways is important to the UK as an exporting nation. It is important to get a reasonable conclusion to these discussions, which I expect to happen under the Dutch presidency next year.

Bus Services

Conor McGinn: What assessment he has made of recent trends in bus (a) fares and (b) service use in England.

Andrew Jones: The latest departmental figures show a slight increase in local bus fares in England, while the provisional number of local bus passenger journeys remains unchanged compared with a year earlier. Final figures will be published in the annual bus statistics released in September. The bus market outside London is deregulated and decisions regarding the provision of individual bus services, including setting the level of fares, is primarily a commercial matter for bus operators.

Conor McGinn: Figures from the Minister’s own Department show that 121 bus routes in the north-west of England have been cut in the last five years, while fares have risen by an average of 25%. When will the Government give more powers to all communities—whether or not they want an elected mayor—to control fares, set routes and integrate services?

Andrew Jones: The Government support the bus sector, which is the backbone of our public transport sector, in lots of different ways, including through the bus service operators grant of £250 million in England this year. The proposals in the buses Bill will include opportunities right across the country for more local control, including the development of franchising, which the Manchester combined authorities are taking forward. The Bill will be published later in this Session.

Gordon Marsden: Is it not clear that the Government have lost the plot for bus users outside London? Their own latest statistics show that journeys there were down by 11 million and fares up by 3.6% last year. Two thousand bus routes countrywide have been lost through cuts since 2010. London, with franchise powers to set routes and fares, has rising bus use. Why are this Government blocking them for communities elsewhere in England—unless they have an elected mayor, which many do not want, forced on them? Is this not sham rather than real localism?

Andrew Jones: Bus fares in Greater London have, in fact, been rising faster than those in non-metropolitan areas. As for the issue of franchising and local mayors,
	it is all about local control and decision accountability. A range of proposals will be published later in the year with the buses Bill.

Low-emission Vehicles

Jeremy Lefroy: What assessment he has made of trends in the rate of take-up of low-emission vehicles.

Robert Goodwill: As more models come into the market, businesses and consumers are recognising that low-emission vehicles are cheaper, greener, and a great driving experience. Thanks to a strong framework of Government support, more than four times as many ultra low-emission vehicles were registered in the first three months of 2015 as were registered in the first three months of 2014. Last year, one in four electric cars bought in Europe was made in Britain.

Jeremy Lefroy: The United Kingdom is one of the world’s leading producers of low-emission engines. For instance, Perkins Engines, in my constituency, manufactures large engines for power generation, and Jaguar Land Rover, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson), manufactures vehicles. What further measures is my hon. Friend taking to encourage UK motorists to start using low-emission engines?

Robert Goodwill: Never mind “one of the world’s leading producers”. I think that we are the world’s leading producer, given that all the i8 hybrid engines for BMWs are made at BMW’s £500 million Hams Hall plant, Donington Park has been chosen as the global headquarters for Formula E, and Geely is investing £250 million to make plug-in hybrid taxis at the new plant in Coventry, thus creating 1,000 jobs. So we are indeed leading the world. As more manufacturers make these models available, more consumers will be given that option at their local showrooms.

Barry Gardiner: The Minister will know of the report that was submitted to the Economic Sub-Committee of the Cabinet which showed that the cost to our economy of air pollution from diesel and other vehicles was between £9 billion and £20 billion. When considering low emissions, will he take into account particulate matter—the PM 2.5—and nitrogen dioxide?

Robert Goodwill: Internal combustion engines produce pollutants which contribute to air quality problems. That is why we need to ensure that more people opt for green alternatives such as electric vehicles, plug-in hybrids, and other technologies that are becoming available.

Stewart McDonald: A report published in today’s Financial Times reveals that, in 2010, 9,500 people died prematurely in London alone as a result of pollutants that are commonly found in fumes from diesel trucks, buses and cars. As well as the human cost, such pollutants carry a financial cost of up to £3.7 billion, just in the capital. Will the Government look at that report, and consider commissioning a similar report applying to the whole United Kingdom?

Robert Goodwill: There is a cross-party initiative on air quality. I should add that I came in on my bicycle this morning, so I have not contributed to any of the air quality problems in London.
	We need to make further progress in rolling out low-emission vehicles, while ensuring that the electricity they use is produced in a sustainable way.

Richard Burden: Figures published this week show the scale of the air quality challenge that faces London, in addition to the carbon dioxide challenge that faces us all, and other towns and cities have similar challenges ahead. Why, in the Budget, did the Chancellor impose a financial penalty on hybrid and plug-in hybrid vehicles, putting them in the same band as cars with far higher emissions? Is it not time that the Chancellor talked to the Transport Secretary, and that both of them listened to what the industry is telling them?

Robert Goodwill: When consumers are deciding which vehicle to buy, they will consider not only the level of vehicle excise duty that they will pay—which, incidentally, will be zero in the case of the very cleanest cars—but the total life cost of the fuel that they will use. It is pretty much a no-brainer to buy the most fuel-efficient car possible, and to opt for a plug-in vehicle if that suits the consumer’s lifestyle.

Bus Services

Suella Fernandes: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of private investment in the bus industry.

Andrew Jones: The bus market outside London is deregulated, and it is for individual commercial bus operators to determine how best to invest in their businesses. The biggest operators have invested £1.3 billion in new vehicles outside London over the past five years.

Suella Fernandes: Local authority funding for local bus services in Fareham and Gosport has been reduced by £1.5 million, leaving areas in my constituency such as Whiteley, Locks Heath and Warsash with virtually no bus service. I am concerned that private investment is not filling the gaps. What are central Government going to do to assist?

Andrew Jones: I note my hon. Friend’s concern, but I believe that decisions about funding to support local bus services are best made at local level. I would say, however, that the Government are continuing to make substantial funding available to bus operators and local authorities through the £250 million bus service operators grant. Additionally, I understand that FirstGroup has made significant investment in local buses in south Hampshire. All the buses in that area are fitted with free wi-fi, and most are fitted with next-stop displays and audio announcements. This is being delivered in partnership with Solent Transport and with Department for Transport funding, and therefore involves a mixture of public and private funding. I share with my hon. Friend a desire to see a strong bus sector.

Mr Speaker: Further copious detail, if required, could always be lodged in the Library of the House.

Barry Sheerman: I do not want to criticise the Minister, but I will. When my constituents go around the country, they, like me, see buses belching filthy black smoke from their out-of-date diesel engines. Cummins in my constituency makes the most advanced turbo-chargers in the world. Why are we not investing in a new generation of buses and getting rid of those that are belching out fumes, killing and shortening the lives of our constituents?

Andrew Jones: Just as the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) came into work on his bicycle this morning, I came in on a bus. It was a clean bus, and the Government are investing heavily in clean bus technology all over the country. I am not quite sure when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) was last on a bus, but if he looks around the country he will see an enormous range of clean buses right across the UK.

Mr Speaker: The Minister truly is a man of the people.

Southeastern Railways

Bob Neill: If he will meet senior management of Southeastern to discuss the reliability of its rail service; and if he will make a statement.

Claire Perry: I regularly meet the senior management of Southeastern to discuss their rail services, and I want to assure my hon. Friend that the recovery of reliability on that route is of the utmost importance to Southeastern, to Network Rail, to my Department and to Transport Focus. I now chair the weekly meeting of a taskforce comprising all those bodies and Southern Railway that is dedicated to improving the reliability and performance of the railway for customers travelling on those vital routes.

Bob Neill: I am grateful to the Minister for the steps she has taken, of which I have had experience, but the fact remains that the performance of Southeastern trains is wholly unacceptable. I am getting emails from my constituents saying that their train is five minutes late more than 60% of the time, which tells me that the message is still not getting through. Should we not be urgently considering the introduction of financial penalties? Should we perhaps consider, even in advance of the franchise renewal in 2018, bringing in an operator such as London Overground, which operates its services infinitely more efficiently?

Claire Perry: My hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that performance is recovering, from a pretty low point last autumn, and that right-time performance is about 62%. That is still not good enough, in my view, but performance is on the mend. We face a massive challenge, in that we are doing some of the biggest engineering works in the UK around the critical stations that serve that part of the network, but that is not an excuse. We have to get performance better during these times of disruption, and that is what the quadrant taskforce is dedicated to doing.

Heidi Alexander: One of the main frustrations of my constituents who use Southeastern trains is the number of occasions on which shorter trains than expected arrive at stations, resulting in acute overcrowding. Will the Minister commit to redeploying some of the Thameslink class 319 carriages to the Southeastern network to ease that problem?

Claire Perry: I commend the hon. Lady, who, unlike some of her colleagues, is an assiduous campaigner on the railways in her constituency. It is nice to see someone who really cares about the railways, rather than someone who simply reads out the Whips’ questions. [Interruption.] She is a Whip, as she points out, and this is her own question. She is right to focus on the issue of rolling stock, and she will be pleased to know that we have received a proposal for improving the rolling stock on that route, which we are now considering. I will take her suggestion into account.

Peter Kyle: Will the Minister tell us when the feasibility study on the Brighton main line 2 rail project was completed, and whether she will put the study in the House of Commons Library?

Claire Perry: Another person who cares about his local railways. I am hoping the hon. Gentleman will join us at London Bridge on Monday, where we are having a really deep dive into what is going on there and the recovery plans for his route. He will know that the Chancellor has committed further funding to the feasibility study, which will help inform us as to the overall benefits. Of course the hon. Gentleman knows that this line, although very welcome to many, has to be effective in terms of cost and affordability—that is what we will be looking to see.

Peter Kyle: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Not now—we will save the hon. Gentleman up for later.

Roads

Lucy Frazer: What steps his Department is taking to improve the condition of roads.

Andrew Jones: Over this Parliament the Government are investing £15.2 billion on upgrading our strategic road network, contributing £6 billion to the local growth fund for local enterprise partnership priorities, including local roads, and just under £6 billion in maintaining our local highways. It is a comprehensive package that will improve the condition of our road network.

Lucy Frazer: In the light of the growth around Cambridge, does the Minister agree that it is time to upgrade the A10 north of Cambridge towards Ely?

Andrew Jones: The growth around Cambridge is encouraging and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend is encouraged by the fact that the Cambridgeshire schemes in the road investment strategy have a budget of more than £2 billion. The A10 is certainly an important north-south link providing access across Cambridgeshire,
	but it is for the local highways authority, the county council and the LEP to best decide what upgrades are needed. My hon. and learned Friend is a tenacious campaigner and I am sure they would be extremely wise to listen to her.

Andrew Gwynne: When the Minister next meets the chief executive of Highways England to discuss the condition of the strategic road network, will he also have a word about the litter on that network, because some of the filthiest roads in my constituency, the M60 and the M67, are under the ownership of Highways England and it is clear that its maintenance arrangements are not adequate?

Andrew Jones: I will be having a monthly meeting with the chief executive of Highways England and I will raise that point with him. To be fair to Highways England, they are not the people who deposit the litter in the first place.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least in this session, I call Matt Warman.

Matt Warman: During the election campaign the then roads Minister came to my constituency to consider a new Boston distributor road and the opportunities it might present. It has been on the drawing board for the past 60 years, so will this Minister commit to continue the good work of his predecessor and come to look at that site again to see when we can finally get some shovels in the ground?

Andrew Jones: I will certainly commit to continuing that good work and will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend in his constituency.

Topical Questions

Stewart McDonald: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: Today, Sir Peter Hendy takes over as the new chairman of Network Rail—he is someone with huge experience who helped keep London moving during the Olympics—to develop the proposals by the autumn on how to improve our vital rail upgrades. That programme will be carried out and will report to me by the autumn. I can also confirm today that Lord Adonis has agreed to become a new non-executive director at HS2 Ltd, bringing his wealth of experience and vision to the project and clearly demonstrating its truly cross-party support.

Stewart McDonald: Can the Secretary of State outline what steps are being taken to improve coastal protection along the west coast of Scotland?

Patrick McLoughlin: I might need to write to the hon. Gentleman about that question and look at it in a bit more detail, because of all the things I had prepared for in these Transport questions, that was not one of them.

John Glen: Will the Minister update the House on the schedule for the much-needed improvements agreed for the A303? When will he meet Amesbury Town Council and other local interested parties to discuss the route and when this work will happen?

Andrew Jones: As my hon. Friend knows, this Government are focused on delivering a £2 billion package of road improvements to the A303/A30/A358 corridor, and that includes dualling the A303 from Amesbury to Berwick Down, as was announced in the road investment strategy. Highways England will continue to engage with a wide range of stakeholders as it investigates what it is going to be doing in detail. It expects to start a wider public consultation in 2017. I will be delighted to meet Amesbury Town Council to discuss the scheme and to meet other local stakeholders, including local councils in his constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), the rail Minister.

Drew Hendry: Over the past few years, many incidents have raised serious concerns over maritime safety in the coastal waters of the highlands and islands. Those concerns have not yet been addressed. Will the Minister agree to meet MPs from the constituencies representing the west coast of Scotland to discuss those concerns and the provision of emergency towing vessels in the area?

Robert Goodwill: I am happy to do so. I have already had briefings on the issue of emergency tugs in the area. I am pleased that we have recently rolled out our new search and rescue helicopters, which are providing a far better service to people in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world.

Suella Fernandes: Junction 10 on the M27 has been identified for vital upgrading to an all-moves junction. Such work is vital to support the strategic development area of Welborne, bringing 6,000 new homes. Can my hon. Friend confirm that those works will be taking place in the first half of this Parliament, and that the funding shortfall of £30 million will come from central Government?

Andrew Jones: The upgrade to junction 10 on the M27 has been profiled to start its preliminary work this year. The Government have contributed £14.9 million through the Solent local enterprise partnership growth deal to make up the shortfall of the scheme. In March, they also contributed £3.4 million in the second growth deal to support the local connections into the junction, and those works will start in 2015.

Heidi Alexander: The Davies commission predicted that 40 million passengers would use Gatwick by 2024, yet Gatwick says that it will reach that number this year. Who does the Secretary of State think is right on that point, and is he concerned that the Davies commission may have underestimated the economic impact of expanding Gatwick?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said when the Davies commission report was published just a few weeks ago, we will be looking at all its implications and recommendations and coming to our view and reporting back to the House by the end of the year.

David Morris: In my constituency, work is under way on building the M6 link road to Heysham port. As phase 2 of the extension, it would be wise to consider carrying out a feasibility study on a tunnel under Morcambe Bay, as the tunnel would link in with the powerhouse and open up the whole of the Furness peninsula. Will my hon. Friend make a statement on that issue?

Andrew Jones: I understand that my hon. Friend is aware that it is for the two local transport authorities of Lancashire and Cumbria County Councils, in consultation with their respective LEPs, to assess whether to take forward the development of that ambitious scheme, which would include any feasibility study. I understand that he has had meetings with both authorities and urge him to continue those discussions and keep me informed of progress.

Kelvin Hopkins: Some 85% of internal and cross-channel freight goes by lorry. A substantial modal shift of freight from road to rail cannot happen unless and until full-size lorry trailers can be carried on trains, which is impossible on the existing network. When will the Government look seriously at investing in new large gauge rail capacity to accommodate lorry trailers on trains and linking the regions and nations of Britain both to each other and to the channel tunnel?

Claire Perry: I commend the hon. Gentleman for his long-term promotion of this large rail project, the G8 freight project. He will know that I was delighted to renew the modal shift grant. We are very focused on getting freight off the roads and on to trains. One freight train saves 72 HGV journeys. I am happy to meet him on this. I understand that the proposal has been looked at several times and was declined about 10 years ago. If he has new information, I would be delighted to see it.

Alex Chalk: Potholes in my constituency cause inconvenience, expense and even danger. Does my right hon. Friend agree that technology is a key weapon in the battle against this menace and that councils should look to use the latest pothole resistant coatings during road resurfacing?

Patrick McLoughlin: We have allocated a substantial increase to local authorities for mending potholes—it is something like a 50% increase over what was provided in 1997. My hon. Friend is right that potholes are a substantial nuisance and menace, and that looking at new ways of repairing them is also very important. Those ways will mean that potholes are repaired and do not deteriorate so quickly.

Rachael Maskell: Fifty-six cyclists have been killed on our roads this year. Following the meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday, will the Minister seek to expand the cycling cities initiative to more cities to help develop the safe cycling infrastructure?

Robert Goodwill: I had an informal meeting with the Prime Minister immediately after the meeting the hon. Lady mentions, and we discussed what measures can be put in place to try and improve the safety of cyclists, such as looking at how junctions can be redesigned. We are proud of our record so far on investment in cycling, and we would like to see more cities taking up the option of becoming a cycling city and reaching the £10 per head funding which the existing cycle cities have achieved.

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State has just said that potholes are a nuisance and a menace, but they are incredibly dangerous as well, particularly for cyclists. Can he encourage local authorities to use the money that has now been provided to act urgently to repair potholes?

Patrick McLoughlin: Yes, I would urge local authorities to act urgently. We have set a budget for local authorities for the next five years so that they can plan their maintenance to get the best service for their constituents and the road user, be it cyclist or motorist.

Kate Osamor: A recent report published by the Papworth trust found that one in five stations in England is accessible to disabled people and that two thirds of disabled passengers need to book assistance in advance to travel. Will the Minister commit to making accessibility a condition of future rail franchises?

Claire Perry: I am sure the hon. Lady, like me, welcomes the fact that under the previous Government we spent and now continue to spend an unprecedented amount of money on accessibility. She is right to focus on the fact that the rail industry voluntarily provides an amazing free service for disabled passengers who need to make shift changes. I think we have made good progress. I am happy to look at individual station applications, but it is right that the railway network is accessible for all.

Martin Vickers: The Sheffield-Gainsborough-Cleethorpes line has many dilapidated stations and a Saturdays-only service. This is a ludicrous state of affairs. People want to visit Cleethorpes seven days a week. Will the rail Minister agree to a meeting with me and the other Members affected?

Claire Perry: Like me, my hon. Friend is an assiduous reader of Rail Magazine. That was a cover story two weeks ago. He is right. The problem we have is a system that has pushed money out of the top, rather than pulled money through the bottom, so even where there are services and new trains, the station infrastructure does not always keep up. I would be delighted to meet him and to come to Cleethorpes once again.

Martyn Day: Some 68% of over-70s households have a car and older drivers are more experienced and generally safer road users who make fewer insurance claims, yet often face higher premiums than those of us in our 40s. What, if anything, will the Secretary of State do to
	encourage insurance companies to adopt a health-based rather than an age-based approach to insurance premiums?

Patrick McLoughlin: The points that the hon. Gentleman makes are very interesting, and next time I meet the insurance companies I will certainly raise that issue with them.

Jake Berry: In a sort of Rossendale remake of “Groundhog Day”, Bacup road in my constituency is being dug up for the third time in the past 18 months. Will my right hon. Friend write to Lancashire County Council about the success of London’s lane rental scheme in reducing delays?

Andrew Jones: I am aware that the Mayor of London enthuses about the success of the lane rental scheme in London and the positive impact it has had in minimising disruption from roadworks. As my hon. Friend knows, the Government believe these decisions are best taken locally, but I will be happy to look closely at what he says and take it up with the county council.

Mike Kane: A key driver of economic growth in the north of England is Manchester airport, which is in my constituency. It relies on public sector transport for its market penetration. Does the Secretary of State understand that the cancellation of midland main line and the electrification of trans-Pennine routes damages Manchester’s economy and our potential growth?

Patrick McLoughlin: There has been no cancellation. The hon. Gentleman should look to the fact that, as I pointed out just a few moments ago, we have electrified the line from Liverpool to Manchester and further upgrades are taking place in relation to the whole of the northern powerhouse. It is something to which we continue to be committed.

Graham Evans: I recently travelled from Frodsham station to Liverpool John Lennon airport along the Halton curve. It took 15 minutes. This is a game-changer for commuters in the area. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the £10.4 million investment and reinstatement of the Halton curve is a strong commitment of this Government to Weaver Vale, Cheshire and the northern powerhouse?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed, and I could reel off a pile of other schemes that have led to improvements in connections and connectivity in the north. My hon. Friend the rail Minister is going with my hon. Friend to visit that site in the not-too-distant future.

Margaret Ferrier: Considering the success of the new lower Scottish drink-driving limit, when will England and Wales follow Scotland, and the rest of Europe, in saving more lives on the roads by lowering the blood alcohol limit to 50 mg per 100 ml?

Patrick McLoughlin: Obviously we will look at any evidence we see. I am pleased that we have introduced new penalties for drug-driving, and we are one of the first countries to do so.

Ben Howlett: As my right hon. Friend will know—he set out his priorities the other week—electrification of the Great Western main line will open up job opportunities and growth for my constituency. Will he confirm that the Government are committed to the largest investment in the railways since the Victorians?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed. My hon. Friend and I have visited some of the schemes going through his constituency and seen the big challenges of electrifying a railway for the first time in its 130-year history, but they are challenges that we are determined to meet.

Rob Flello: When the Secretary of State or his Ministers are next having conversations with their Treasury colleagues, will they urge them to look at the shameful disparity between wholesale and retail prices for petrol and diesel? A review is needed to look into why motorists are being ripped off.

Patrick McLoughlin: I am always keen to have discussions with Treasury colleagues, and that might be one of the issues we discuss next time.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

Chris Grayling: The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 20 July—Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill.
	Tuesday 21 July—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
	The business for the week commencing 7 September will be:
	Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the European Union Referendum Bill.
	Tuesday 8 September—Consideration in Committee of the Finance Bill.
	Wednesday 9 September—Opposition day (6th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of the Scottish National party. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 10 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.
	I want to inform the House of two other matters. First, it might be helpful to right hon. and hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), to know that you, Mr Speaker, have authorised a trial during the September sittings in which the alphabetical groupings in the Division Lobbies will be changed. We will not be consigning the Mc’s to the outer darkness, but the letter G will move to the A to F desk. That is to try to address the issue, raised by several Members, of long queues at the current G to M desk. The trial will run for two weeks to establish whether the new arrangements improve the situation.
	Finally, as is customary, I want to thank all the staff of the House for their hard work, particularly in supporting Members at the start of this Parliament following the general election. I hope that they enjoy a well-deserved break. I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will also have a well-deserved break as well as spending a lot of time on constituency work—it is not all holidays, of course—before the House returns in September.

Angela Eagle: Let me begin by seconding the Leader of the House’s thanks to all the staff and employees of the House for the support they have given us since the general election. As he is trialling the moving of the letter G from one desk in the Division Lobbies to another, perhaps he will explain why we cannot trial his plans for English votes for English laws, because they seem more important.
	Yesterday’s general debate on the Government’s rushed and partisan proposals to introduce an English veto into our Standing Orders demonstrated that there is no support for it outside the Government. The Leader of the House has not announced when in September he intends to force votes to introduce his reckless plan. Will he tell us now on what date he is thinking of bringing the matter back to the House? Will he confirm that, despite the huge doubts expressed yesterday, he intends to force it through with no further concessions?
	This week we learned that the Government’s plan to pack the House of Lords with 100 extra, mainly Tory, peers has been blocked by the Cabinet Secretary—at least for now. Does the Leader of the House agree that the upper House is already bursting at the seams and that, even without these extra peers, it now has the dubious distinction of being the second largest legislature in the world, beaten only by the Chinese People’s Congress? Given that every peer costs £117,000 a year, can we have a debate about how on earth these plans fulfil the Prime Minister’s pledge to cut the cost of politics? Why does this Prime Minister think it is acceptable to slash the number of elected Members in this House while allowing the unelected House to expand seemingly indefinitely in his own party’s interests?
	The summer recess is nearly upon us, and I bet nobody will be more relieved than the Leader of the House. He is just two months into his new job and the Government’s business has already descended into chaos. We have had the Prime Minister’s doomed attempt to enforce collective Cabinet responsibility over his own EU referendum, which he hurriedly abandoned at the first whiff of grapeshot. In the last week we have learned of the Government’s new “dodgems” strategy to pilot their business through the House. Their headlong rush to impose a shoddy and partisan “English votes for English laws” fix was replaced with yesterday’s general debate without a vote to manage unease on their own Back Benches. Then we had the absolute farce of their botched attempt to wreck the Hunting Act 2004. The first vote was meant to be today, then it was moved to yesterday to be rushed through in 90 minutes, and then, as most of us learned on Twitter well before the Leader of the House came to the House to announce the change using a point of order, the Government pulled the vote because they knew they would lose. Will the Leader of the House tell us what other chaos he is planning for September?
	This week the Government’s farcical attempt to reincarnate themselves as some kind of workers’ party has been exposed as a sham. Before the election, the Tories had vowed to “transform policy and practice” to help more disabled people into work. After the election, they scrapped the independent living fund, and we now hear that the Prime Minister is considering forcing workers to save up for their own sick pay. The Chancellor’s so-called national living wage has been exposed as just a rebrand of the minimum wage, and with his huge cuts to tax credits, millions will be thousands of pounds a year worse off. The Mayor of London has let the cat out of the bag, acknowledging that these changes will not deliver “enough to live on”.
	Yesterday the Government revealed their real nature with the most vindictive attack on trade unions for 30 years. Despite the Government’s spin, this is an attack on the basic freedom to organise in the workplace that any Latin American dictator would have been proud of. If they really were the workers’ party, they would be supporting trade unions, not attacking them.
	Today we will hear the result of the Liberal Democrats’ leadership election. I would like to send my commiserations to whichever candidate is unfortunate enough to win. Since the Prime Minister’s pre-resignation, there have been interesting developments in the Conservative party leadership election. Yesterday the Home Secretary poured cold water on the Mayor of London’s plans for water
	cannon. He has sprayed around public money, buying second-hand German cannons that it transpires he cannot even use. The Home Secretary rejected his business case because it was not watertight. I just hope he bought them on a sale-or-return basis. The Chancellor has also been on manoeuvres. The Treasury sent out an email to lobby journalists that mysteriously read, “Blah, blah, blah.” That is the most sensible thing the Chancellor has said in five years.
	We have all been entranced this week by the news that a NASA space probe has made it to Pluto: a cold, desolate, lifeless place, light years away from civilisation. It sounds just like the Tory Back Benches. No doubt we are about to discover that it is a plutocracy run by old Plutonians—a bit like this place.

Chris Grayling: I have a high regard for the hon. Lady as a parliamentarian, but as a stand-up comedian, I would not go there. [Interruption.] I think hon. Members laughed in exasperation at how bad, not how good, the jokes were.
	The hon. Lady asked about English votes for English laws and, indeed, the trial of the new Division Lobby arrangements. I assure her that the English votes for English laws procedure will last longer than two weeks when we put it into place. It is not customary to announce business further in advance than is normal in the business statement. When we return in September, I will as normal set out the business for the coming weeks.
	The hon. Lady made a point about the House of Lords. May I once again suggest that it really is not a good idea to believe everything she reads in the papers? That story was simply not true, and it has rightly been described by Downing Street as “nonsense”. [Interruption.] I take it that the Labour party will therefore not nominate any peers in future. I take it that the hon. Lady is giving a self-denying ordinance that there will be no more Labour nominations to the House of Lords.
	The hon. Lady talked about reducing the size of this House. I simply remind her, as I keep doing on English votes for English laws, that we believe in keeping to our manifesto commitments.
	There was, however, one point on which we agreed—offering our good wishes to the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, who will be announced this afternoon. As the hon. Lady rightly says, he faces a very big and uphill task. We now have a collection of fine Members of Parliament on the Government Benches who will be excellent representatives of their constituencies and will I am afraid freeze out the Liberal Democrats for the foreseeable future.
	The hon. Lady talked about chaos. Let me give a simple explanation of chaos. Chaos is a party that claims to represent working people, but votes against a national living wage. Chaos is a party that claims to represent working people and not support benefit-dependency, but increasingly opposes our reform of welfare, as we see in Labour Members’ mounting rebellion at their leadership’s attempt to claim that they support our reforms. Chaos is a party that claims to support an extra voice for the English, but says it will vote against a sensible package of reforms that will do the right thing for the English. Chaos is a party that ends up with its leadership candidates fighting over whether it is good
	idea for a party leader to be a parent. Chaos is a party that cannot even condemn the strikes that left millions of people unable to make their normal journeys to work last week.
	The hon. Lady talks about supporting trade unions. May I ask her, as one of two preferred deputy leadership candidates backed by a militant boss who says it is okay to break the law, whether that is really what she means by supporting the trade unions? She talks about places that are light years away from civilisation. There is one place close to here where that is definitely the case—in the Labour party.

Pauline Latham: May we have a debate on why British taxpayers’ money should be used in the bail-out of Greece when we are not a member of the eurozone?

Chris Grayling: We are very clear that British taxpayers’ money will not be put on the line as part of the support for Greece. We have huge sympathy with the plight faced by the Greek Government and their people. It is right and proper that action is taken within the eurozone to try to support them, but the reality is that this is a problem for the eurozone and within the eurozone. Britain is not part of the eurozone and we do not want to be part of the eurozone. It is for the taxpayers of the eurozone, not the taxpayers of this country, to put their money on the line to support this bail-out.

Pete Wishart: I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I sincerely hope that it lasts a bit longer than last week’s business and that it will not be hastily rearranged on the back of a point of order, as happened this week.
	It seems as though the Scottish National party now has almost a magical omnipotent power. As soon as we announce our intention to exercise our democratic rights in the House and vote on a measure announced in the business statement, it miraculously disappears. Such is this omnipotence that we are seemingly credited for the election result in England, the near-death of the Liberal Democrats and the crisis in Labour, and now we are the saviours of the English foxes.
	I am going to try my arm and see whether I can test that omnipotence a little further. I announce to the Leader of the House that the Scottish National party fully intends to vote on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Let us see whether we can get that miraculously to disappear and whether we can do the job of protecting the poor, the most marginal and the vulnerable in society from the callous Bill that the Tories intend to introduce. We cannot leave that to the Labour party. I have no idea what Labour Members will do on Monday, but I hope that they join us in the Lobby and vote against this callous Bill. When I look round at my honourable colleagues in the Labour party I have my doubts, but I hope they do the right thing.
	The Leader of the House does not like me referring constantly to the Scotland Bill, but he will have to indulge me a little more. This week the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he is in a mood to accept some amendments, which is good news for my hon. Friends given that we have had four days of debate on the Bill and nothing has been accepted. I appeal to
	the Leader of the House for sufficient time to discuss the remaining stages of the Bill, so that amendments are debated by elected Members of this House and none are taken to the unelected, bloated Chamber up there, where there are no representatives of the Scottish National party. The amendments must be discussed under the full glare of the elected representatives of the Scottish people. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will get sufficient time to debate those issues properly?
	Finally, as is customary as we head towards the recess, may I wish you, Mr Speaker, an enjoyable summer recess? I also wish the staff of the House an enjoyable recess, and on behalf of all new SNP Members—this is practically a new parliamentary group—let me say that the kindness and good grace shown by the staff of the House in assisting all our new Members has been recognised by us all. I also wish the Leader of the House an enjoyable summer recess. He has been kind and courteous to us in our new enhanced position here, and I wish him all the best for the recess. I hope he comes back, drops his EVEL plans, and I am sure we will get on just famously.

Chris Grayling: Let me reciprocate and say that although we will have lively debates across the Floor of the House, I have found initial relations between myself, my colleagues and the new SNP Members at Westminster to be pleasant and congenial. I return the hon. Gentleman’s wishes and I hope that all SNP Members—indeed, all Members of the House—have a pleasant recess. Having gone through an election period when everybody works immensely hard, although lots of us have constituency work during the summer, I think that everybody deserves a short break as well. I wish everybody the best for the summer recess.
	Perhaps over the summer, as the hon. Gentleman relaxes on the beach or wherever he is, he might consider whether he really wants to pursue the policy of reversing what he rightly said when he gave evidence to the McKay commission about the need for the Scottish National party to stay outside matters that do not affect it. That has been a policy of principle for the SNP over many years, and it is a shame that he has walked away from that. If anybody is U-turning at the moment, it is him. He is a man of principle, and I am sure that he will reflect again and perhaps take a different approach in the future.
	I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, because I suspect that the Scottish National party’s view on that will not change many opinions on the Government Benches. This is a Bill on behalf of working people, and I am certain that it commands support among working people in Scotland who—like everyone else in the country—want a welfare system that is fair, and also fair to those who pay for it. That is what the Bill will do.
	On the Scotland Bill, I say simply that there will be a further day of debate in the House and the conclusion of proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table amendments and debate them with the Scottish Secretary, he will of course have the chance to do so as normal.

Christopher Chope: With the news this week that the promise that the European Union made to our Prime Minister has been reneged
	on, may we have an early debate on how we can hold the European Union to account so that it complies with its word? For example, can we bring forward a breach of promise action against the European Union?

Chris Grayling: I understand my hon. Friend’s point and I have every sympathy with what he says. We have been clear that we in this country will not allow taxpayers’ money to be put on the line for a bail-out. We are also clear that the political agreement reached between member states must be adhered to. That is a matter for the eurozone and for its members to resolve. We cannot be in a position where countries outside the eurozone have their taxpayers’ money put at risk in circumstances such as this. We are clear about that, and sympathetic to, my hon. Friend’s point, and there will be a number of opportunities next week for him to raise a point about which he is absolutely correct.

Graham Allen: The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is currently finishing its progress through the other place and will come here shortly. Will the Leader of the House tell us when that will be? Will he also ensure that this English devolution Bill takes as much time on the Floor of the House as we have rightly spent discussing the Scotland Bill, which is a devolution Bill for Scotland? Will he ensure that the 85% of the UK population that is English can see that this House fulfils its obligations by considering the Bill on the Floor of the House and not in Committee?

Chris Grayling: I will take a careful look at the timetable for the Bill. We have a lot of business to get through in the autumn, but we will endeavour to make sure there is as much time available for key measures as possible. I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s view on the importance of this measure. It is a part of a devolution package designed to provide additional powers across the United Kingdom. It is right and proper that cities such as Manchester have additional powers. My hope and expectation is that the Bill will pass and deliver those powers.

Amanda Milling: Ladder for Staffordshire is a new campaign to promote apprenticeships across Cannock Chase and the wider area. It created 50 new apprenticeships on the first day alone. May we have a debate on the role that such campaigns can play in helping to create apprenticeships?

Chris Grayling: Local work done to promote our overall national goals on apprenticeships is absolutely vital. I praise all those in my hon. Friend’s constituency who have been involved in that work, and her for the work she is doing. Engaging employers in providing apprenticeships is vital, something she will no doubt wish to discuss during the passage of the Finance Bill or when Treasury Ministers are here next week. We need to keep getting across to employers the role they can play.

Ian Mearns: I note on the Order Paper today that nominations for membership of the Backbench Business Committee have been forthcoming. We are not yet completely open for business, but I hope that by Monday we will be and that on Tuesday we can have our first meeting. Under normal circumstances,
	we would be looking for submissions to the Committee by the previous Friday, which would be today. I have contacted colleagues and people are agreeable for submissions to be made by mid-afternoon on Monday, with the first meeting of the Committee hopefully at lunchtime on Tuesday. Will the Leader of the House please recommend to right hon. and hon. Members that they make applications for debates to the Backbench Business Committee on subjects of their choosing?

Chris Grayling: I am very happy to do that. I see the hon. Gentleman is making a number of appearances on the Order Paper today, since he is one of those who appears to be not entirely in line with his party’s acting leadership on other matters. I absolutely support his request. Given that we are setting out Committees late before the summer recess, it is right and proper that a little flexibility is shown. I am sure everyone in this House would accept that that should be the case.

Peter Bone: Following the point made my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) about the breach of promise by the EU, as I understand it, we are now required, as the United Kingdom, to put £1 billion towards the bail-out of Greece. I think people will find that unacceptable, so may we have a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer next week on that subject?

Chris Grayling: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be here on Tuesday and will certainly be explaining where we have got to on this matter. He is clear, and I am clear, that British taxpayers’ money cannot be put on the line to bail out Greece. That would not be acceptable to the people of this country. We have a debate to come in this country on our relationship with the European Union. I think people would look very hard if we were put into a position where our taxpayers’ money was on the line for a bail-out in the eurozone when we are not a part of the eurozone.

Nigel Dodds: Great progress has been made in recent years in tackling cancer and increasing survival rates, but there remain great discrepancies between the various regions and countries of the UK in terms of early diagnosis and treatment. May we have a debate at some point early in the next session on how we can ensure that all our constituents get equal access to early diagnosis and treatment?

Chris Grayling: We would obviously want the best possible treatment for every citizen of the United Kingdom. We have arrangements where the health services in the four parts of the UK are managed separately. These are devolved matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important that we share best practice from the NHS in England to the NHS in the other three countries in attempting to make sure that the best possible treatment is available, but that is of course a matter for the devolved Administrations to decide.

Philip Hollobone: I thank the Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, for your quick response in recognising and responding to Members’ concerns about the arrangements in the Division Lobbies.
	Allegedly, Kettering is the most average town in England. It is, however, very special to those of us who live there, and its special status has been confirmed by
	the award of a purple flag for it having a thriving, safe and vibrant night-time economy. That is similar to green flags for parks or blue flags for beaches. May we therefore have a debate in Government time about the importance of provincial town centres, and how best practice from places like Kettering might be rolled out to the rest of the country?

Chris Grayling: I am sure that my hon. Friend did not intend to inadvertently mislead the House, but I have to say that no constituency represented by him could possibly be an average town. [Hon. Members: “Hear, Hear.”] I congratulate everyone in Kettering who has worked towards that award. I know Kettering; it is a fine town. It is a great community, and it is a tribute to the strength of its community that it has been marked in this way.

Keith Vaz: Yesterday, I and other colleagues attended the opening of the new parliamentary education centre. I commend you, Mr Speaker, and the other Officers of the House, and Westminster City Council, for ensuring that it was up and running so quickly. Given the importance of the regions to the development of Parliament, would it be possible to look at setting up sub-offices of the parliamentary education centre in those towns and cities that are associated with the development of parliamentary rights? We obviously do not have a purple flag like Kettering, but we do have Simon de Montfort, the Earl of Leicester. May we have a debate on that very important subject?

Chris Grayling: As long as the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we might relocate Parliament to Leicester, I would be very happy to table that as a thought for the Commission. I was very sorry to miss the launch of the education centre yesterday; the shadow Leader of the House and I were obviously in this Chamber for the debate on English votes. I congratulate everybody who has been involved in it. I am looking forward to visiting the centre to see the work that has been done, and I see no reason why we should not explore ways of ensuring that people around the country have an opportunity to learn more about Parliament.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate about local democracy and local accountability? In particular, may we explore the practice of electing people to local councils by thirds, which not only is a spectacular waste of money compared with all-out elections every four years, but undermines local accountability? When the local people want to get rid of a corrupt or poorly performing local authority—such as we have seen in the past with Doncaster and Rotherham—they cannot do so when it is elected by thirds, when one party has a massive majority. All-in and all-out elections surely bring about much more local democracy. May we have a debate on them?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I have both in my constituency—part of the constituency is all-out, part is by thirds. It is certainly the case that thirds creates a constant programme of elections, which cost the taxpayer. I cannot comment specifically on the circumstances that he refers to, but of course these decisions are taken locally, can be taken locally, and with a proper debate locally things can be changed.

Paula Sherriff: Prior to the general election, the Chancellor advised that my constituency of Dewsbury would be designated an enterprise zone within 100 days. Will the Leader of the House agree to ask the Minister to meet me to discuss the implementation process?

Chris Grayling: Of course, the Chancellor will be here for Treasury questions next week and I would simply suggest to the hon. Lady that she puts that question to him. The enterprise zone programme is part of our plan to shift the focus in this country—in our deprived areas and our challenged areas and in towns that need support and development and economic growth—away from excessive welfare dependency and on to a focus on better conditions for people in the workplace through the national living wage and better support for business. It is a shame that the hon. Lady appears to oppose the measures that we shall bring before the House on Monday, because they would help her town and others like it.

Tom Pursglove: Corby is under threat from plans for a gasification plant. Local people are united in opposing the plans, and I am standing shoulder to shoulder with them in fighting against them—Corby really does say no. May we have a statement from a Minister setting out the protections that are in place for communities that are under the threat of gasification plants being built?

Chris Grayling: I will make sure that my hon. Friend’s concerns are passed on to the relevant Ministers. He is already proving a powerful advocate for Corby. I know that this is an issue of concern to local residents, and I will make sure he gets a proper response.

Patrick Grady: August 6th will mark the 70th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima, and a few days later will be the anniversary of Nagasaki. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to reflect on the legacy of that event and the horrors of nuclear war, and will he perhaps tell us when we can expect a statement from the Defence Secretary about the timetable for the maingate decision on Trident?

Chris Grayling: No one could look back on the bombings at the end of the second world war without a sense that we must never allow that to happen again. The reality is that for 70 years the world has managed to keep a nuclear peace, and long may that continue. The Defence Secretary will be in the House again after the summer recess, will continue to be available for questions and will set out our plans in due course.

Byron Davies: Yesterday the Auditor General for Wales published a damning report on the Labour Welsh Government’s handling of the regeneration investment fund for Wales and the underselling of a large amount of publicly owned property. May we have a statement on the issue from the Secretary of State for Wales as soon as practicable?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend gives me an example that I missed out when I talked about the chaos in the Labour party. It is chaotic in opposition, chaotic in
	government, letting down Wales and failing to deliver the services and environment that Wales needs. It would be great to see Wales have a Conservative Government, not the current Labour Administration who have let it down year after year.

John Martin McDonnell: Today the Home Secretary has published the terms of reference of the Pitchford inquiry into undercover policing. To be frank, I expected an oral statement, not a written statement, given the significance of that. The purpose is to investigate to what
	“extent and effect undercover police operations have targeted political and social justice campaigners.”
	Some months ago, we revealed in the House the extent of undercover police surveillance of trade unionists, but there is no explicit mention of trade unionists in the terms of reference, which we expected there to be. Will the Leader of the House seek clarification from the Home Secretary that trade unionists who have been under surveillance will be included in the inquiry’s terms of reference?

Chris Grayling: It will be up to the Home Secretary to give a detailed response to that question, and I will make sure she is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Andrew Stephenson: Last Friday I was delighted to look at three brownfield housing sites in my constituency, at Valley Road and Hope Mill in Barnoldswick and at Knotts Lane in Colne, where the Together Housing Group is delivering 95 new affordable homes this financial year. May we have a debate on brownfield generation and on what more can be done to ensure that we prioritise brownfield land over greenfield land?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When the Chancellor announced our reforms to the planning process last week, he was clear that there should be a strong, and in many cases automatic, presumption of development on brownfield sites, and that we should protect our green belt. We as a party feel strongly about that. Yes, we face housing pressures and need to build new houses, but that must not happen at the expense of the character of our country. I believe that we have a portfolio of policies that will secure that.

Judith Cummins: As the Leader of the House will fully appreciate, the Secretary of State for Transport’s recent announcement that the electrification of the trans-Pennine route will no longer go ahead as planned has been met with widespread concern throughout the Chamber. Given the importance of the matter, does the Leader of the House agree that time should be allocated to debate the future of that major project?

Chris Grayling: Of course, the Transport Secretary has just been in the House answering questions on that very issue. We have not cancelled the programme; we have simply had to delay it. We will go ahead with the electrification. I remind the hon. Lady that when Labour was in government, it electrified 10 miles of railway line. We have a major programme of electrification that could have started when Labour was in government, but it did not.

Chris Green: Our economic recovery will be put at risk if trade unions no longer act within the law, as they suggest. May we have an urgent statement on how trade unions can be made to act legally?

Chris Grayling: The one more disgraceful thing I have seen in recent days than a trade union leader saying that it is okay for his members to operate outside the law has been the Labour party’s deafening silence in condemning such an irresponsible statement. I waited for the acting leader of the Labour party or any of the four candidates for the leadership to stand up and say, “That is wrong. Trade unionists should not break the law”. But silence followed. I heard nothing—no condemnation. That is because they are so in hock to the trade union movement that they do not even dare to tell them that breaking the law is wrong.

Kirsten Oswald: Following recent reports that the Ministry of Defence has spent almost £120 million in one year on car rental, may we have a statement or a debate in Government time on whether that kind of practice can possibly represent value for money in MOD procurement?

Chris Grayling: We can safely assume that the Ministry of Defence, under the high-quality leadership of the current Secretary of State, looks to make sure that it maximises the value of its budget. I am pleased that we will maintain our 2% commitment to NATO, but that does not mean that the Secretary of State will not look to drive out extra efficiencies to ensure that we put as much resource as possible into the front line.

Jeremy Lefroy: BCG is an important ingredient in drugs to tackle bladder cancer, but there is a shortage and only one manufacturer of it—MSD, which to its credit is producing as much as it can. Several other manufacturers have left that particular business. May we have a debate on ensuring the security of the supply of those most vital drugs?

Chris Grayling: I commend my hon. Friend for the work he has done in this important area. He is a great champion for the health service in his constituency and for his constituents who need healthcare. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for Health is aware of the concerns my hon. Friend raises, and gives him a response before we come back in September.

Peter Kyle: In Transport questions, on a question on parallel tracks, the Secretary of State moved into a parallel universe when he refused to answer a question about the Brighton main line 2 rail upgrade programme and a feasibility study mentioned on page 69 of the Budget Red Book, which clearly states that the feasibility study exists. The rail Minister could not give the answer because the study does not exist, as revealed in a parliamentary answer I received this week. May we have a statement to bring clarity to the situation? Either the Department for Transport or the Chancellor is in danger of misleading the House.

Chris Grayling: If the hon. Gentleman wants to put the question directly to the Chancellor, he will be here on Tuesday for Treasury questions. The hon. Gentleman
	could also request an Adjournment debate in which he could put his questions directly, over a longer period of time, to the Minister concerned.

Nigel Huddleston: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the great work being done by the Heritage Lottery Fund, which allocates some £375 million to projects across the UK every year? An event last week, hosted by my predecessor, Sir Peter Luff, showcased many works connected with the centenary of the first world war.

Chris Grayling: The House’s loss is the Heritage Lottery Fund’s gain. Sir Peter was a distinguished public servant in this House for many years. He was well regarded and will be much missed in his constituency, even though he has a great successor. I pay tribute to the Heritage Lottery Fund and to all the organisations that have been involved in commemorating the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war. The Woodland Trust in my constituency has begun to create a new area of woodland to mark the occasion, as it is doing in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Several other organisations have been involved, and it has been an example of this nation at its best.

Jessica Morden: The Smith family from my constituency, whose son Colin died tragically aged seven, a victim of the contaminated blood scandal, are keenly awaiting the Government’s further response to the Penrose inquiry. When will that happen?

Chris Grayling: This issue has rightly caused enormous concern across the House. Many of our constituents have been touched by it, and the hon. Lady is not alone in having tragic circumstances in her constituency. I know that the matter is very much on the minds of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State. It is our intention to respond in the timetable that was committed to.

Jason McCartney: This summer I am very much looking forward to my annual week of volunteering, when I will join the volunteers of the National Trust, the Holme Valley mountain rescue team, the Pack Horse trail, Huddersfield Canal Society and The Cuckoo’s Nest in Marsden. May we have a debate about the wonderful service that volunteers provide in our communities day in, day out?

Chris Grayling: By the sounds of it my hon. Friend is not going to be getting much sleep that week! I hope he finds that that experience is helpful to him and enables him to do what we as Members of Parliament should all do, which is to pay tribute to the work that volunteers do in our society. Our society is a better and stronger place because of their work, and every one of us will have examples in our constituencies of people who go more than the extra mile to do good work for the areas where they live. We should praise every single one of them and be grateful to them for what they do.

Jim Shannon: The access to, and availability of, cancer drugs throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is an issue that concerns directly more than 50% of our population. The current cancer drugs strategy runs out in March 2016. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate about this vital health matter in the autumn?

Chris Grayling: It is of course important that we deliver the best possible support for cancer victims. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence makes a real effort to try to identify the right products to make available through the national health service, and individual local responsibility for decision making lies with the devolved Assemblies, but there will be opportunities after the summer recess to raise the issue with Health Ministers —in questions, in an Adjournment debate and now that the Backbench Business Committee is up and running. The Health Secretary is also in the House regularly to take questions from Members.

Nigel Evans: Yesterday I went to the Diabetes UK lobby, where I met a brave triple amputee, along with two of my constituents who live with diabetes. One of them gave me the Daily Mirror, which reports that 135 amputations are taking place every week. We have found ourselves in an appalling situation, and it is only going to get worse with the obesity time bomb that is about to hit us. Is it possible to have a statement as early as possible from a Health Minister on exactly what the Government intend to do to tackle this appalling tragedy?

Chris Grayling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that very real health challenge which this country faces, and the very real issue that many of our constituents face. I am pleased that we are the first Government, I think, in one of very few countries—if there are any others—to have a national strategy to address the issue. The Health Secretary takes the issue very seriously, and I will make sure that he is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns so that when my right hon. Friend is next in the House he can provide an update about the work he is doing in that important area.

Paul Flynn: It was an act of cowardice by the Government to deny this House a democratic vote on fox hunting, just because the nasty, blood sports party has become too nasty even for many of its own MPs. When can we express the settled view of the country and of MPs that the tormenting and killing of defenceless animals for fun is not acceptable?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman represents a Welsh constituency, and it is perhaps not a coincidence that the Labour party lost seats in Wales at the general election, because it does not appear to be very much in touch with the concerns of Welsh business or, in this particular case, of Welsh farmers. I suggest that he talks to them about their concerns.

Alec Shelbrooke: In January I turned 40—[Interruption.] I know, I know. The reason why that is relevant is that the year before I was born is the last time we had wholesale reform of local government. Following on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I think the time has come for a debate about how we run local government and whether it is fit for purpose. Mr Speaker, I know you are keen on brevity, so may we have a long debate about local government reform, one which needs to start specifically with the democratic accountability of one member per ward?

Chris Grayling: One challenge that many smaller councils face is that they have three-member wards, and several have decided they cannot afford to have so many councillors and have reduced those numbers. It is a live issue, but one that can be and is decided by local authorities themselves. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will make strong representations in his own area on their moving to a more efficient system.

Callum McCaig: Given the shambles of the debate around EVEL, the Government’s intransigence over the Scotland Bill and their all-out attack on the renewables sector in Scotland, may we have a debate in Government time about their one nation approach, because it would be very enlightening to know which nation they are referring to?

Chris Grayling: It still baffles me why the Scottish National party appears to believe that covering the Scottish mountains in endless wind farms is the best way to preserve Scotland’s character. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues talk about English constituents raising concerns with them, thereby giving them the right to vote and express a view, but plenty of English people have expressed profound concern about wind farms in Scotland and the damage they do to the Scottish environment. We are listening to them.

Bob Blackman: In the early hours of this morning, two young men were admitted to hospital with stab wounds following a major gang fight in my constituency. I understand that several individuals are under arrest as a result. I also believe that statistics have been published this morning showing that knife crime is on the increase for the first time in four years. Will my right hon. Friend facilitate an early statement from the Home Secretary on what we can do to remove the scourge of knife crime from our streets once and for all?

Chris Grayling: We have taken additional steps in this area to introduce tougher legislation. I pay tribute to our former hon. Friend, Nick de Bois, the previous Member for Enfield North, for his work in this area. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who has worked hard in this area too, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). We have introduced measures as a result of which anybody caught carrying a knife for a second time will be subject to an automatic jail sentence. We have to send a strong message that it is simply not acceptable in our society today to carry a knife. If knives are carried, tragedies follow; they must not be carried.

Diana R. Johnson: Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), the Prime Minister promised a statement before the summer recess on the contaminated blood scandal. By my calculation, that leaves next Monday or Tuesday. Will the Leader of the House confirm that we will have a statement on Monday or Tuesday?

Chris Grayling: It is the intention that we should do what we said we would do before the summer recess.

Stephen Gethins: As part of my constituency role, I sit on the board of the Links Trust, which looks after the St Andrews golf courses. As the Open begins, will the Leader of the House join me in wishing well everybody travelling to my constituency to take part, and will he find time for a debate in the House on the benefits of golf to the social and economic wellbeing of everybody in the country?

Chris Grayling: That is certainly true, although I might not be alone in thinking that time on the golf course is sadly at a premium in the busy life of a Member of Parliament. None the less, golf plays an important part in our national sporting life. I am disappointed that Rory McIlroy cannot take part in this year’s Open, as he has proved a great champion for the United Kingdom as well as for Northern Ireland, but let us hope that despite the strong American challenge this year, one of our fine British golfers will win through come Sunday night.

Barry Sheerman: I join colleagues in calling for an early debate on the situation in Greece. I am well aware that we are not part of the eurozone, but Greece is the cradle of democracy and a member of the European Union and the European community, and there are many young people in desperate straits and many children starving there. Surely, in the name of our common humanity, we can find room in our hearts to help Greece in its hour of need.

Chris Grayling: I do not disagree for a moment with what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is a big difference between being friends to the Greeks and saying that a country that is not in the eurozone should be part of eurozone support for Greece and should help to sort out its financial challenges. That is the issue and the challenge. We stand clearly as friends of the Greeks—we will work with them, seek to be their partners and help and encourage them out of the problems they are in—but we cannot, and should not, address the problems of the eurozone from the outside. We consciously, and rightly, decided as a nation not to be part of it. The eurozone must take the lead in sorting out the problems within its borders.

Madeleine Moon: A recent report by Citizens Advice Wales shows a 14% increase in the number of people going to their offices for help and support. The top 10 issues that people go for advice about are the personal independence payment, the employment and support allowance, working tax credits, child tax credit, housing benefit and disability living allowance—and the rest all relate to debt. May we have a debate on how the Government’s benefits policy has led to an increase in debt in many regions of the United Kingdom?

Chris Grayling: What the Government’s policies have done is create more employment in Wales, as they have in every other part of the country. What our policies in the benefits arena are doing through the introduction of universal credit is to simplify a complex system and create proper incentives for people to move back into work. People with disabilities should do small amounts of work in order to enable them to start making a move back into the workplace. That is the kind of strategy
	this country needs—to help those who genuinely cannot work, but to make sure that the support is there for those who have the potential to get back into the workplace and that the jobs are there when they need them.

Peter Grant: On 18 June the Leader of the House answered questions that I had raised on behalf of a number of people who were unable to get information from the Scotland Office through the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Clearly, I, a Member of Parliament, should not have to rely on that Act. Is the Leader of the House aware that I subsequently attempted to use a number of parliamentary procedures, but have as yet been unable to get the Secretary of State for Scotland to tell us who wrote and who received the infamous “Frenchgate” memo? I cannot even get him to admit whether he saw a copy of it before it was leaked. I cannot get him to tell us which Ministers or whether any Ministers saw that memo before it was leaked. No doubt the Leader of the House would agree that it would be enormously embarrassing for this place if I as an MP were forced to raise this matter under FOI. Does he agree that a Government who have nothing to hide should stop hiding? Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Scotland to be brought before the House to explain himself as soon as possible?

Chris Grayling: Of course, one of the benefits of how this place works is that Members have a number of ways to bring Ministers before the House to answer questions—whether it be through Adjournment debates, oral questions, debates called by the Backbench Business Committee or whatever. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman will use one of those different approaches to bring the Secretary of State for Scotland here so that he can put those questions directly to him.

Barry Gardiner: The third international conference on financing for development, which took place in Addis Ababa last weekend, made it clear that aid donor countries received five times as much in illicit financial flows as they gave out in aid—for every $1 in aid, they received $5 in illicit financial flows. We have not had a statement on the conference, which has been some surprise, but will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on what this country is doing to stop such illicit financial flows from flowing back from the developing world into the UK?

Chris Grayling: We are—I believe rightly—good citizens in the world when it comes to providing development support where it is needed, but none of us would ever condone illegal practices; in fact, we have some of the world’s toughest and most highly regarded anti-corruption laws. I will make sure that the Secretary of State for International Development is made aware of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

Liz McInnes: Yesterday, I met a representative from Addaction, which provides drug and alcohol treatment services to prisons. She explained that because of staff shortages prisoners simply cannot be escorted for their treatments. May we have an urgent debate on the difficulties experienced in implementing drug and alcohol treatment regimes in our prisons?

Chris Grayling: I praise Addaction for the work it does. I have had many dealings with it over the years, and it does excellent charity work. The hon. Lady is right, and I know from my former role that there have been staff shortages in parts of the country. That has been a result, ironically, of our economic success and a buoyant labour market, particularly in the southern part of the country, where unemployment levels have been below the conventional full employment levels in many areas. It poses a challenge for public services. I know that my former team and the current team in the Ministry of Justice have been working hard to address those shortages and will continue to do so.

Kate Green: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement, either before the recess or during the September sittings, on the future of the access to elected office for disabled people fund, which helps disabled candidates with the additional costs of putting themselves forward? I hope that I shall have the support of the Chief Whip in this regard, given that he has been a firm supporter of the fund.

Chris Grayling: I am very sympathetic to the hon. Lady’s request. I am observing all sides of the various selection processes with great interest, especially that involving the Member who shadowed me in the days of my justice role, who is one of those now vying to be the Labour candidate in London. I always watched his Twitter feed with amusement, as about one tweet in 10 was about justice. and nine out of 10 were about his travels around different parts of London.
	The hon. Lady has made a very important point. It is good for our democracy that disabled people stand for elected office, whatever party they belong to. We should always do what we can to help them, and I will ensure that the hon. Lady’s comments are drawn to the attention of the appropriate officials.

Conor McGinn: This weekend, I shall somewhat advisedly seek to double the number of Labour MPs in Scotland—albeit temporarily—by visiting Ayrshire to serve as best man for my friend Alan Gemmell, who is marrying his partner Damien Stirk. Does the Leader of the House share my pride in the fact that Britain has led the way on equal marriage, and will he provide time for a debate so that the House can show solidarity with lesbian and gay people throughout the world who are denied this and many other rights and freedom?

Chris Grayling: Equal marriage is one of the big social changes of recent years for which the House has voted. I supported it, the hon. Gentleman supported it and a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends supported it, and I think that it has been a positive step. I wish the hon. Gentleman well, and I wish the friends whose wedding he will be attending all the best for the future. I have to say that I think the Labour party will probably be outnumbered by the Conservatives in Scotland this summer, as I know that a number of my hon. Friends will be taking advantage of the tourist destinations and, in some cases, fishing rivers which that fine country offers.

Drew Hendry: Although more than 90% of the highlands and islands is mainland, my constituents,
	along with people in neighbouring constituencies, continue to be unfairly discriminated against, and are forced to endure excessive delivery surcharges from some traders, particularly online. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the practice of delivery surcharges in rural areas?

Chris Grayling: That is an important issue, which does not affect only the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The provision of services in rural areas is an issue in many parts of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have had a number of debates in recent weeks about, for example, the provision of rural broadband. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I would assure colleagues on both sides of the House, that when the Government can help to improve the situation in rural areas, that will be a priority for us.

Tom Elliott: If the Leader of the House and his colleagues wish to visit Northern Ireland as well during their holidays, they are welcome to do so.
	During the passage of the Scotland Bill, we have had two debates on English votes for English laws, and the possibility of other legislation on devolved matters in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Will the Leader of the House set out his vision, or the Government’s vision, for the Union during this Parliament, so that we know exactly what their priorities are, and can be assured that theirs is not a piecemeal approach?

Chris Grayling: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, and we will continue to discuss that issue. It is important for us to set out that vision for the Union. We want a strong Union with strong devolved Assemblies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. We want fairness for the English. We want local communities and cities in England to have greater responsibility for managing their affairs. Ultimately, however, we want a strong Union in which we all work together.
	I might add that the hon. Gentleman, in Northern Ireland, benefits from what I believe to be one of today’s finest and most popular tourist attractions, namely the Iron Throne.

Andrew Gwynne: Reference has already been made to the Chancellor’s proposed planning reforms, which will involve a near-presumption in favour of housing on brownfield land. Given that that is a substantial departure from the current plan-led system, in which such pieces of land are identified for other uses and particularly for employment use, will the Leader of the House first tell us how those measures will be brought to the House for discussion, and secondly what the time scales will be?

Chris Grayling: There are regular opportunities to discuss planning matters. We will be debating the Finance Bill next week, at which point such matters can be raised, and there will be Treasury questions and Department for Communities and Local Government questions when we return in September. It is important that we should move ahead with the development that we need, and that we should use sites that are sitting idle as the focal point for that development. That is the Government’s strategy.
	We do not want sites that could be used to meet urgent housing need to sit idle for years and years. That does happen in some places.

Greg Mulholland: May we finally have a statement from a Health Minister on the ongoing chaos and delay in the process of approving drugs for those with ultra-orphan diseases? My six-year-old constituent, Sam Brown, and many other children are no longer getting the drugs they need, and they are deteriorating and will die early as a result. Can we please, finally, have a statement on this, before the recess?

Chris Grayling: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Our hearts go out to the very young people who are facing such dreadful health challenges, and I will make sure that his concerns are passed on to the Secretary of State for Health today.

NHS Reform

Jeremy Hunt: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on measures to improve the safety culture in the NHS and further strengthen its transition to a modern, patient-centric healthcare system. The failings at Mid Staffs, detailed in the Francis report, were not isolated local failures. Facing up to widespread problems with the safety and quality of NHS care and learning the appropriate lessons has been a mission that the Government and the NHS have shared, with a common belief that the best way to deal with problems is to face up to them rather than wish that they did not exist.
	Measures taken in the last Parliament include: introducing the toughest independent inspection regime in the world; more transparency on performance and outcomes than any other major healthcare system; new fundamental standards; a duty of candour; and the excellent recommendations by Sir Robert Francis QC. But because the change we need is essentially cultural, a long journey remains ahead. The Department of Health was described during the Mid Staffs era as a “denial machine”. We therefore have much work to do if we are to complete the transformation of the NHS from a closed system to an open one, from one where staff are bullied to one where they are supported, and from one where patients are not ignored but listened to.
	Today I am announcing some important new steps, including: our official response to Sir Robert Francis’s second report, “Freedom to Speak Up”; our response to the Public Administration Select Committee report “Investigating clinical incidents in the NHS”; and our response to the Morecambe Bay investigation. I am also publishing Lord Rose’s report into leadership in the NHS—a key part of the way in which we will prevent tragedies such as these from happening again. I would like to thank everyone involved in writing those reports for their excellent work.
	In his report “Freedom to Speak Up”, Sir Robert Francis QC made a number of recommendations to support this cultural change. All NHS trusts will appoint someone whose job is to be there when front-line doctors and nurses need someone to turn to with concerns about patient care that they do not feel able to raise with their immediate line manager. We will also appoint an independent national officer, located at the Care Quality Commission, to make sure that all trusts have proper processes in place to listen to the concerns of staff before they feel the need to become whistleblowers. Other changes will include providing information about raising concerns as part of the training for healthcare professionals and part of the curriculum for medical students, and placing a greater focus on learning from reflective practice in staff development.
	Dr Bill Kirkup’s report into Morecambe Bay brought home to the House that there can be no greater pain than when a parent loses a child and then finds that pain compounded when medical mistakes are covered up. We will accept all the recommendations in this report, including removing the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s current responsibility and accountability for statutory supervision of midwives in the United Kingdom, and bringing the regulation of midwives into line with the arrangements for other regulated professions.
	Likewise, we agree with the vast majority of the recommendations of the excellent PASC report into clinical incident investigations. In particular, we will set up a new independent patient safety investigation service by April 2016, based on the success of the “no blame” approach used by the air accidents investigation branch in the airline industry. It will be housed at Monitor/Trust Development Authority, which have the important responsibility of promulgating a learning culture throughout the NHS. Monitor/TDA will operate under the name “NHS Improvement”, and Ed Smith, currently a non-executive board member of NHS England, will become the new chair, with a brief to appoint a new chief executive by the end of September.
	For NHS managers, Lord Rose’s report, “Better leadership for tomorrow”, makes vital recommendations to join up the support offered to NHS managers, to improve training and performance management, and reduce bureaucracy. He extended his remit to cover the work of clinical commissioning groups, which play a key role in the NHS, and today I am accepting all 19 of his recommendations in principle, including moving responsibility for the NHS leadership academy from NHS England to Health Education England.
	These are important recommendations, which, in the end, all share one common thread: that the most powerful people in our NHS should not be politicians, managers or even doctors and nurses, but the patients who use it. Using the power of intelligent transparency and new technology, we now have the opportunity to put behind us a service where you get what you are given and move to a modern NHS where what is right for the service is always what is right for the patient.
	A litmus test of that is our approach to weekend services. About 6,000 people lose their lives every year because we do not have a proper seven-day service in hospitals. Someone is 15% more likely to die if they are admitted on a Sunday than if they are admitted on a Wednesday. That is unacceptable to doctors as well as patients. In 2003-04, the then Government gave GPs and consultants the right to opt out of out-of-hours and weekend work, at the same time as offering significant pay increases. The result was a Monday-to-Friday culture in many parts of the NHS, with catastrophic consequences for patient safety.
	In our manifesto this year, the Conservative Party pledged to put that right as a clinical and moral priority. I am today publishing the observations on seven-day contract reform for directly employed NHS staff in England by the Review Body on Doctors and Dentists Remuneration—the DDRB—and the NHS Pay Review Body. They observe that some trusts are already delivering services across seven days, but this is far from universal. According to the DDRB, a major barrier to wider implementation is the contractual right of consultants to opt out of non-emergency work in the evenings and at weekends, which reduces weekend cover by senior clinical decision makers and puts the sickest patients at unacceptable risk. The DDRB recommends the early removal of the consultant weekend opt-out, so today I am announcing that we intend to negotiate the removal of the consultant opt-out and early implementation of revised terms for new consultants from April 2016. There will now be six weeks to work with British
	Medical Association union negotiators before a September decision point. We hope to find a negotiated solution but are prepared to impose a new contract if necessary. To further ensure a patient-focused pay system, we will also introduce a new performance pay scheme, replacing the outdated local clinical excellence awards, to reward those doctors making the greatest contribution to patient care.
	I am also announcing other measures today to make the NHS more responsive to patients. Those include making sure patients are told about Care Quality Commission quality ratings as well as waiting times before they are referred to hospitals, so that they can make an informed decision about the best place to receive their care. NHS England will also develop plans to expand control to patients over decisions made in maternity, end-of-life care and long-term condition management, which I will report in more detail subsequently to the House. Finally, because the role of technology is so important in strengthening patient power, we must ensure that no NHS patient is left behind in the digital health revolution. I have therefore asked Martha Lane Fox, the former Government digital champion, to develop practical proposals for the NHS National Information Board on how we can ensure increased take-up of new digital innovations in health by those who will benefit from them the most.
	When we first introduced transparency into the system to strengthen the voice of patients, some called it “running down the NHS”. Since then, public confidence in the NHS in England has risen 5 percentage points. By contrast, in Wales, which resisted this transparency, a survey has seen public satisfaction fall by 3 percentage points. Over the previous Parliament, the proportion of people who think that the NHS in England is among the best healthcare systems in the world increased by 7 percentage points, the proportion of those who think NHS care is safe increased by 7 percentage points and the proportion of those who think that they are treated with dignity and respect increased by 13 percentage points. That demonstrates beyond doubt the benefits of an open and confident NHS, which is truly focused on learning and continuous improvement.
	As we make progress in this journey, we must never forget the people and the families who have suffered when things have gone wrong. In particular, there are the families and patients at Morecambe Bay and Mid Staffs, the whistleblowers who contributed to Sir Robert Francis’s work, and everyone who has had the courage to come forward in recent years to help reshape the culture of the NHS. Without their bravery and determination, we would not have faced up to the failures of the past or been able to construct a shared vision for the future. We are all massively in their debt. This statement remains their legacy, and I commend it to the House.

Andy Burnham: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. Let me say at the beginning that I support much of what he said. I will focus my remarks on his plan for seven-day working, and then touch on some of the other issues he raised.
	Ensuring that our health services are there for everyone whenever they are needed—be that a weekday or a weekend—should be our shared goal across this House
	for a 21st-century national health service. Illnesses do not stop at the weekend and nor should our NHS. Although we support the principle of what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with seven-day working, and will work with him where possible, I urge some caution in the manner in which he is attempting to drive through these changes. His remarks contain no acknowledgment that the NHS right now is in a very fragile condition. It has gone backwards, not forwards, in recent times. A&E is in crisis, and primary care services are overwhelmed. There is a shortage of staff and an over-reliance on agency workers. Staff are demoralised and worn out. If he does this in the wrong way, many may walk away and that would make matters even worse. Given all that, it is not immediately clear how seven-day services can be delivered in the timeframe he has set out without significantly impacting on the rest of the NHS.
	The Secretary of State said that around 6,000 people lose their lives every year because we do not have a proper seven-day service. Of course that is an appalling statistic, but is there not a risk of implementing seven-day services by simply spreading existing resources more thinly? A recent study published in “Health Economics” concluded:
	“There is as yet no clear evidence that 7-day services will reduce weekend deaths or can be achieved without increasing weekday deaths.”
	Will the Secretary of State tell us on what evidence he has based his announcement and, crucially, what steps he is taking to guard against what the study warns could be an increase in weekday deaths?
	If the Secretary of State wants to make changes on this scale, it is vital that he works in partnership with NHS staff. I gently say to him that briefing headlines such as “Declaring war on doctors” have not got us off on the right foot, as doctors are already feeling worn out and put upon. The British Medical Association said:
	“Today’s announcement is nothing more than a wholesale attack on doctors to mask the fact that for two years the Government has failed to outline any concrete proposals for introducing more seven-day hospital services.”
	Will the Secretary of State take care to avoid provocative statements such as “Declaring war” and will he rethink the manner in which he is pursuing these negotiations? Talk of imposing deals at this stage is not helpful; it is premature and it would be better to proceed in a more constructive manner.
	Staff across the entire hospital system—not just doctors —will be needed to run these services, but the Government confirmed only last week that many of them will face another five years of pay cuts. In total, that will amount to a decade of pay cuts. Has the Secretary of State looked at the detail of the Chancellor’s announcement on pay for NHS staff? Will he tell the House what effect he believes this deal could have on staff numbers and retention?
	The Secretary of State said very little about how he will fund seven-day services, but given that the NHS is struggling to fund weekday services, it is likely to need significant investment over the next five years, over and above funding attached to the five-year forward view. Can he confirm that the money allocated to fund the five-year forward view does not include seven-day working? That is not specifically mentioned in the “Five Year Forward View”. If so, what extra funding will be made
	available specifically to deliver seven-day working, and when will this funding be available? The announcement today appears to be unfunded and it will not escape the House’s attention that the 2010 Conservative manifesto also promised to deliver seven-day services. The Secretary of State has a lot of convincing to do if he expects people to believe him this time.
	In a statement last week in another place, Lord Prior, the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for NHS productivity, said he was establishing an independent inquiry into extending charges in the NHS. This has sounded alarm bells among many patient groups. Will the Secretary of State say more about the terms of reference for this independent inquiry and when it will proceed with its work?
	The Francis “Freedom to speak up” report contained a number of important recommendations to foster a more open culture and we support his work to implement them. The right hon. Gentleman will know that there have been a number of appalling examples of poor care in recent times at Orchid View, Oban Court and Winterbourne View, and these scandals were exposed only when undercover reporters infiltrated the care home. Will he look seriously at the idea of an independent body to receive complaints from NHS staff and social care staff so that they are not faced with the problem of always going to their employer if they are to blow the whistle?
	I welcome what the Secretary of State had to say about the Kirkup report and his acceptance in full of its recommendations. We, too, think of the families affected by the failures at Morecambe Bay. I supported steps to improve the regulation of midwives, but the big question mark over the right hon. Gentleman’s commitment is the failure to bring in a Bill on professional regulation. This was an important recommendation of the Francis report and the continued delay in implementing this proposal is putting patients at risk and preventing regulators from doing their job. Will the Secretary of State now commit to legislating at the earliest opportunity for the Law Commission’s reforms?
	These are extremely serious matters and I do not believe that some of the Secretary of State’s more political comments today were appropriate, nor do I believe they will build the consensus that will be needed across this House to deliver these important changes. Labour introduced more transparency into the NHS with the establishment of independent regulation and the inspection of hospitals. I appointed Robert Francis to begin the work of looking at what went wrong at Mid Staffs. Where the Secretary of State seeks to build on these constructive changes, we will support him, but he will not achieve his goals by provoking confrontation with doctors or playing politics with patient safety.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support on many of the measures that we are announcing today. Where we can work together, we should. I thank him for his support for the principle of seven-day working, although I gently point out that this was in our manifesto in May and it was not in his. I shall deal in turn with the points that he raised.
	On funding for seven-day services, the right hon. Gentleman has just fought an election on plans that would have meant that the NHS would get £5 billion less than this Government are prepared to commit. We are
	committing £10 billion to the NHS to implement the five-year forward view, which we can do on the back of a strong economy. That includes plans for a seven-day service.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about comments by Lord Prior in another place. There is no independent review on charging for NHS services. After the election, he should be very careful of such scaremongering. That is what he was doing for the whole election. When he makes such comments, he frightens NHS staff. He should think about the effect on morale when he does that.
	The right hon. Gentleman said that the NHS has gone backwards, not forwards, but I have just presented figures showing that public confidence in the NHS is going up; the number of people who think that the NHS is one of the best systems in the world has increased. I gently point out that the reports we are publishing today are a response to problems that happened on his watch and that we are facing up to, so he should have a little modesty in this situation.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked an important question about spreading services currently offered on five days over seven days. A lot of work has been done on this. The truth is that having services only on five days is not only dangerous for patients but incredibly inefficient for hospitals. For example, someone admitted to hospital on a Friday in need of a diagnostic test might not get the result until the following Monday or Tuesday so will have to stay in hospital for the weekend even though they could possibly have been discharged. That is bad for the patient and expensive for the NHS, so these measures will result in huge cost savings.
	Most importantly, the right hon. Gentleman talked about carrying staff with us. Doctors go into work every weekend throughout the NHS and do a fantastic job, but often it is not recognised and they are not thanked. We want a more professional contract that recognises that contribution. That is why these measures are supported by the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Emergency Medicine.
	When the previous Labour Government changed the consultants’ contract in 2003, senior doctors did not like it. They said that it led to
	“a loss of a sense of vocation and what it means to be professional”.
	That quote is from a King’s Fund report. It undermined the basic relationship between doctor and patient. We are not blaming doctors, and actually we are not blaming unions, because unions will always ask to see what they can get—the right hon. Gentleman spends more time with unions that I do, so he knows that better than I do. The people responsible for that decision in 2003 were the Ministers who signed off changes to the consultants’ contract and the GPs’ contract. It was Labour politicians who were responsible for those changes, and they must take responsibility for the fact that it was the wrong thing to do.
	Finally, this is the most important question of all, and we have not heard an answer today: does the right hon. Gentleman support the measures that the Government are putting forward to make our hospitals safer with seven-day working or not? Leadership is about making choices, and today’s choice is this: is he on the side of the patient or on the side of the union? We know whose side we are on. For Labour, once again, the politics matters more than the patients.

Sarah Wollaston: I welcome the Secretary of State’s vision of an NHS that is empowered to focus more fully on the people and communities it serves and that is more transparent, less bureaucratic and as safe on a Sunday as it is on a Wednesday, and I welcome his comments about culture change. Does he agree that meeting that challenge will also depend on financing? As welcome as the extra £8 billion announced in the Budget is, will he join me in urging colleagues to ensure that as much of that as possible is front-loaded, because it is so necessary for the transformational changes he has talked about? In encouraging leadership across the NHS, will he ensure that the changes that are needed at a local level, and the systems we can integrate for the benefit of patients, can be introduced more quickly and effectively?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for her important comments, and for sitting through a very long speech I gave this morning. We are trying to achieve many things. At their heart, as she rightly says, is a recognition that culture change does not happen overnight. She is right that the profiling of the extra money that the Government are investing in the NHS is important, because we need to spend money soon on some things, such as additional capacity in primary care, as in two to three years’ time that will significantly reduce the need for expensive hospital care. We are going through those numbers carefully. She is also right that local leadership really matters. I know that she will agree, especially as she comes from Devon, that leadership needs to be good at a CCG level as well as a trust level, because CCGs have a really important role in commissioning healthcare in local communities. That is an area where we need to make a lot of improvements.

Philippa Whitford: I have to declare an interest: like most doctors, I am a member of the British Medical Association.
	I commend the Secretary of State for his announcement about a national officer for whistleblowers. Shona Robertson, Scotland’s Cabinet Secretary for Health, announced this in June, and we are taking action on the Francis report in the same direction. It is vital that members of staff feel they have someone to speak to if things are not going well, and that if they are not being responded to locally there is an independent voice that they can go to.
	With regard to seven-day services, the excess deaths of people who are admitted at weekends is recognised and abhorred by the vast majority of doctors. I do not know anybody who gets up and works the hours we do and does not care that someone did not do well. However, I think we are blurring the lines between the elective and emergency systems. The sickest people the Secretary of State mentions—those who run the risk of dying if admitted on a Friday or a Sunday—are not part of the elective system but of the out-of-hours emergency system. It is suggested that hospitals are like the Mary Celeste and there are no doctors. In fact, any service with an emergency component runs 24/7, but there is a multi-disciplinary team. Sometimes patients will be stuck on a ward because they cannot get access to a scan or there is no physiotherapist to help them recover from their stroke.
	We are already working towards solving this in Scotland. We are doing so in a more collaborative way, and that is important. There is no resistance to that, because it is
	recognised that we need all parts of the service. This is different from people coming in for a routine check-up on a Sunday when that does not result in a detriment to them if it is not available. The biggest shortage we have is in human resources—doctors, nurses, physios, occupational therapists and radiographers. I recommend that the Secretary of State separate these two aspects. The first is that hospital consultants did not get the option to opt out of 24/7 care for emergency patients in the contract, whereas GPs did. It is a matter of providing, funding and setting up a full service with all that is behind it to deal with ill patients seven days a week, no matter when they come in.
	The other aspect is trying to get value for money. If we have invested in expensive machines and theatres, we want them to work as many days a week as possible so that we get value for money, but that must be secondary to the first priority, which is looking after sick people. I suggest that the Secretary of State starts talking about the two aspects on separate tracks and not crossing backwards and forwards, and that this should be collaborative. I echo the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) in saying that we require the money to be front-loaded so that we get it to start changing the service now.

Mr Speaker: Order. May I gently say that from now on we are going to have to enforce the time limits on Opposition responses to ministerial statements much more strictly? Otherwise they eat into the time available for other colleagues. The shadow Secretary of State has five minutes in response to a 10-minute statement and the third party spokesperson has two minutes. That really does have to be adhered to as a matter of course from now on.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady speaks with the authority of someone who works in hospitals, and I always listen to her very carefully. I do not think it is easy to make a rigid distinction between elective and emergency care. The opt-out in emergency care does apply, for example, to accident and emergency doctors. Sometimes when people are admitted to hospital because they are ill—they would not be admitted if they were not—their condition may not appear to be life-threatening on a Friday afternoon but then, over the course of the weekend, they deteriorate, and by the time they are seen by a senior consultant on a Monday or a Tuesday, it is too late. The trouble is that we have a culture in which a lot of major services are available only from Monday to Friday, and that is what is causing these avoidable deaths. The hon. Lady is right to say that this is not just about senior consultant cover; it is also about diagnostic care, handovers and many other things, and we are working at those. The Royal Edinburgh Infirmary has done a very good job of eliminating the difference between weekday and weekend mortality rates, as have Salford Royal and Northumbria hospitals in England. We need other hospitals to follow those examples.

Graham Brady: Senior clinicians in my constituency are warning of a major threat to patient safety as a result of a proposed downgrade of one of Britain’s best hospitals, Wythenshawe. The regional transplant unit is a world-class centre for heart and lung and there is a major trauma centre adjacent to Manchester airport, where it should be. That must all be protected. The Secretary of State knows my view that the consultation has been opaque,
	and that the decision-making process has been flawed. Will he review the decision as urgently as possible, and meet me and other Members for local constituencies as a matter of urgency before the summer recess to discuss what can be done?

Jeremy Hunt: I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those matters. Wythenshawe is an excellent hospital—I have been there—and it has provided a number of staff who have helped to turn round the standard of care at Tameside hospital, which has seen dramatic improvements. I recognise that Wythenshawe is an excellent hospital, and I am very happy to meet him to listen to his concerns.

Ben Bradshaw: How will the Secretary of State pay for his very laudable objective of seven-day working when he has lost control of NHS finances? Contrary to what he claimed about the situation in Devon, as things now stand our patient care is suffering, waiting times are rocketing and we are facing a £434 million deficit.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman why so many places are going into deficit. They have looked at the lessons of Mid Staffs and said, “We don’t want that to happen here.” That is why, in the past two and a half years, hospitals have employed 8,000 more nurses on hospital wards to deal with the scandal of short staffing that they faced and wanted to do something about. In the end, if it is not sustainable, it is not quality care, so we have to find smart ways to control deficits—not by reducing the staff and making care unsafe, but by making changes to process and through efficiencies, such as making sure that nurses do not spend too long filling out forms and can spend more time with patients. In terms of funding, I would just say that the only way to fund a strong NHS is to have a strong economy, and that is why the country voted in a Conservative Government in May.

Tania Mathias: I declare an interest as a member of the BMA.
	I absolutely agree with all the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). I like the reforms of leadership, but will the Secretary of State recognise the existing great leadership in the NHS? A safe NHS is one in which staff morale is at its best. If every leader in the NHS was at the level of Professor Sir Peter Morris, we would already have the best and safest health service in the world.

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend obviously speaks with huge knowledge—I am wondering whether she is the first Conservative MP who is also a member of the BMA —and is extremely welcome for the insights she brings to the House.
	Leadership and morale are absolutely crucial. One of the ways in which we can improve morale is by giving patients and doctors alike the sense that we are honest about the problems and have good plans in place to tackle them. Nothing eats away more at morale than people going in day in, day out and not giving patients the care that they want to give and feeling that nothing is being done about it. That is why the move towards transparency, which I know my hon. Friend supports, is so important.

Mike Kane: I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady). Despite a public consultation wanting five major trauma receiving sites in Greater Manchester and Wythenshawe hospital being the public choice, it did not receive specialist status at the end of the Healthier Together process yesterday. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the people of Trafford and south Manchester, particularly in relation to the 18 specialisms that are underpinned by Wythenshawe being a major trauma receiving site?

Jeremy Hunt: As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), I will look into the decision made by Healthier Together. The assurance that I can give to the constituents of the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), and indeed to all people in the Greater Manchester area, is that with some of the most exciting changes, such as the integration of health and social care and the transformation of out-of-hospital care—it has just been announced that there will be seven-day GP services across Greater Manchester—they are blazing a trail. It will be exciting for his constituents; none the less, I understand their concerns about their local hospital and I am happy to look into that.

Christopher Pincher: We in Staffordshire know better than most what the denial machine that the Secretary of State referred to meant to local people, so I congratulate him on his commitment to transparency and consistency. Will he encourage the Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust and the Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to work much more collaboratively, so that that commitment to transparency and better service is delivered to my constituents in Tamworth and Fazeley?

Jeremy Hunt: I will absolutely encourage that. The Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust is one of the biggest in the country and has had significant challenges. The Burton foundation trust has been through the special measures process, and patient care has improved as a result. Collaborative working will be the way forward. We need to break down the silos that have cursed so much of the NHS, and I will happily pass on that message.

Norman Lamb: I advised food manufacturers in the ’90s about bringing in seven-day working to keep supermarket shelves stacked. Twenty years on we are still talking about seven-day working in the NHS, and it seems to me that good care and saving lives are rather more important. Will the Secretary of State ensure that exactly the same principle applies to mental health? Does he recognise that it is just as important to ensure that people can leave hospital and go home on a timely basis, seven days a week, but that with cuts to local government funding there will be more pressure and it will be more difficult to achieve that? Together with the extraordinary pressure that the system is under, does that not make the case even more strongly for a new settlement for the NHS and social care?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for finding time to come to the Chamber on what I know is an important day. I am not sure whether I am allowed
	to wish him luck, but I greatly value the time that I spent working with him as a ministerial colleague, and I know he will make an important contribution to the House. He is right, as ever, to speak about mental health. The programme towards seven-day working is as important for mental health as it is for other services, and we must also ensure that the revolution happens for things such as suicide rates and crisis care. He is right about the importance of the social care system; and in my mind when I speak about seven-day care I am thinking about social care and health as one entity.

Andrew Percy: Our doctors no doubt work incredibly hard in our hospitals. The people of Brigg and Goole and the Isle of Axholme work at weekends, whether in factories, at the docks or in the fields, and they want an NHS that does the same. The Secretary of State will know about my passion for ambulance services, which at weekends are often the last line of support for patients. What will his plans mean for ambulance services and the incredible job that paramedics do across the country?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend because he leads by example as a first responder and does a fantastic job in his constituency—indeed, that role takes place at weekends. Paramedics and ambulance services operate a seven-day service. Nurses, paramedics and others who work in hospitals currently do not have an opt-out; consultants are the only ones who do. These measures will give ambulance services confidence that if they take someone to hospital at the weekend, there will be a proper senior consultant present and their patient will get in front of the right person. That will make their job all the more rewarding.

Valerie Vaz: The Secretary of State has not outlined what steps should be taken to recruit, train and retain front-line staff who are key to patient safety.

Jeremy Hunt: We have big plans to recruit and retain staff, and those are being worked up by Health Education England. We think that we will need extra doctors to deliver seven-day care, just as we will need more GPs. We think we can afford that within the extra £10 billion that we are putting into the NHS, and we are ensuring that all the numbers add up. I am sure that I will inform the House once we have come to a conclusion.

Maria Caulfield: I declare an interest as an NHS nurse. Does the Secretary of State agree that the UK has one of the worst one-year cancer survival rates compared with the rest of Europe, with one in five cases being diagnosed as an emergency admission? Having a prompt diagnosis is very important. A seven-day-a-week service would be a major step forward, because patients should be seen when clinically indicated, not when indicated by the calendar. With a seven-day service they will be seen more quickly and be less poorly. Not only will that save money but—more importantly—it will save lives.

Jeremy Hunt: Absolutely. May I say how pleased I am to welcome my hon. Friend’s experience on the Conservative Benches? It makes a big difference. She is absolutely right. NHS England will be saying more about how we
	intend to deal with the problem of late diagnosis of cancer, which is critical if we are to improve our cancer survival rates. One point that links to the announcements I have made today is better collaboration between senior cancer consultants and GPs. If GPs are to be able to spot cancers earlier, they will need to link into the learning they can receive through closer contact with consultants and hospitals. That is something we need to think about.

Dennis Skinner: As someone who has spent quite a bit of time going to hospitals over the past 16 years, I have learned a little about it. I suspect that some people, like the doctors who the Secretary of State wants to collaborate with, just might have reflected on why this Tory Government are more concerned with getting in agency nurses and doctors than giving nurses a decent pay increase. Has it not crossed his mind that by telling nurses they are worth only 1% more, he will finish up with more agency nurses? The truth is that doctors see this happening every day. The main reason is that the Government have tried to reform and privatise the NHS for the past five years. The doctors and the nurses do not trust him—it is time he got out.

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what the doctors and nurses working in our NHS hospitals see. They see 8,000 more hospital nurses on full-time contracts than when his party was in power, because we are doing something about the scandal of short-staffed wards that was left behind by his Government.

Steven Baker: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that neither the revalidation regime nor the NHS’s status as a near monopsony employer is allowed to promote anxiety among NHS staff who would otherwise wish to speak up? It is essential that they know they have that freedom and security.

Jeremy Hunt: As ever, my hon. Friend is spot on. At the heart of what I am saying today is creating a new learning culture inside the NHS where people are able to be open. In the airline industry, it is much easier for a junior pilot to talk to a senior pilot about a mistake they think the senior pilot has made without feeling it will impact on their career. We need to break down the barriers, so that when people talk about their concerns—even about what their boss has done, which is never easy—they are listened to and treated seriously, and there no consequences as a result. We absolutely have to make that change.

Catherine West: Are the Government considering the introduction of charging in the NHS, as a member of the Secretary of State’s ministerial team, Lord Prior, suggested in the other place in response to Lord Patel?

Jeremy Hunt: No, that is not the case, and the hon. Lady should avoid scaremongering.

Christopher Chope: Given the political priority which my right hon. Friend attaches to 24/7 consultant cover for accident and emergency hospitals, why was his Department unable to answer the question I put about which hospitals in England currently provide such cover? Will he collect that data and make sure that is published?

Jeremy Hunt: The truth is that all hospitals have been moving in this direction in the past five years in different ways. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, to make sure we deliver on our manifesto commitment, we will be doing a full and comprehensive audit of which people are delivering which types of services. It is partly about senior consultant cover, which we are talking about today, partly about seven-day diagnostic services, partly about handover, and partly about mental health and many other standards, but, yes, that work is being done.

John Woodcock: The Secretary of State was unclear before. May I say that, as far as I am concerned, those of us on the Labour Benches are absolutely in favour of measures that will increase safety at the weekend, and that my party will never prosper as a mouthpiece for the British Medical Association? Is he not concerned that the porters and nurses, who are being asked to swallow a decade-long real-terms pay cut, will not be able to deliver such change given the level at which they are being demoralised?
	If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, may I also say that I very much welcome the full acceptance of the recommendations of the Morecambe Bay inquiry? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the families will remain fully involved in ensuring that these measures are implemented, as well as accepted, by Government?

Jeremy Hunt: Of course. The hon. Gentleman has liaised very closely with the Morecambe Bay families over the period of the inquiry. I am happy to give him the assurance that they will remain closely involved.
	I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman says he does not want his party to be the mouthpiece of the BMA, but if that is the case it needs to get behind the proposals that the Government are making today and say it supports them. We have not heard that from his party and that is what the public want to hear.

Jeremy Lefroy: The trust or place that has probably learned the most from Mid Staffordshire is Mid Staffordshire, or, as it now is, County Hospital, Stafford. Quality of care and performance has increased dramatically, with 98% and more patients seen within four hours at A&E. That is why we need a 24/7 A&E. May I urge the Secretary of State to ensure that the new independent patient safety investigation service is truly independent, despite being housed in the Monitor-Trust Development Authority building?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for the amazing work he has done in supporting County Hospital through the most unimaginably difficult circumstances. I put on record my thanks to the doctors and nurses working in that hospital who are doing a fantastic job. They have improved care. Many of them were working at the old Mid Staffs hospital and, even during the period of those problems, they were working incredibly hard and doing a very good job for patients. They did not want to be associated with any of the bad things that happened. They are a shining example to all of us. Yes, the independent patient safety investigation service needs to be independent, but I think trusts will welcome this measure. It will mean that a trust has a body, which is completely independent of anyone working in the trust, that it can
	call in. In a no-blame way, it can find out exactly what happened—a bit like a French juge d’instruction; that kind of principle. I think that will be really welcomed in the NHS, but independence is vital.

Karin Smyth: I declare my interest as a former NHS manager, latterly for a clinical commissioning group. I very much welcome the focus on patients, transparency and the use of digital, which will be very helpful for the challenges we will face. As a former NHS manager, I would make the plea that management needs support in facing the challenges ahead. I am afraid that confrontation with local doctors as the first step over the summer period is not helpful. Will the Secretary of State please support NHS managers in this difficult task ahead, across clinical and non-clinical standards? I very much welcome the Rose review, but can we please give managers the support they need?

Jeremy Hunt: I am really grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point. NHS managers have one of the most difficult challenges in the country. Not only do they have to balance revenue and expenditure; they have patients’ lives at risk and public accountability. It is really difficult to run a hospital or a clinical commissioning group. These are some of the most difficult jobs one can imagine. We need to support them. I hope they will agree and welcome a move away from targets as the main way of driving change in the NHS to intelligent transparency and peer review. This is not a confrontation with doctors. Doctors overwhelmingly support a seven-day service. It is, I am afraid, a battle with the BMA, with which we have been trying to negotiate on the matter for nearly three years. It has refused to move. It needs to get in touch with what its members want and what the public want, and then I hope we can make much faster progress.

David Mowat: A characteristic of the health system in our country is that we have something like 20% to 25% fewer doctors per head of population than comparable countries such as France, Germany and Spain. Is it part of the Secretary of State’s vision to correct this over time, and will that make reforms such as these easier to push through?

Jeremy Hunt: We do need more doctors and more nurses. We saw an increase of about 8,000 nurses and 10,000 doctors in the previous Parliament. We will need more for the simple reason that we will have 1 million more over-70s by the end of this Parliament. That said, the NHS is admired in the other countries my hon. Friend talks about for our models of care, which are sometimes less hospital-centric and therefore inherently more efficient than what happens in some other systems. The learning should go both ways.

Diana R. Johnson: My question is about whistleblowers. I want to know whether the Secretary of State is really satisfied that the fit and proper person test for managers is working, when it allows a chief executive who bullies and mismanaged, as happened in Hull, as the Secretary of State knows, to move with the help of the Trust Development Authority to another job as a chief executive, paying £170,000,
	and yet the whistleblower has to fight for her rights. When the fit and proper person test was invoked, the TDA investigated and the new trust, unsurprisingly, said that that chief executive was okay. I do not think that that is independent, transparent or in the spirit of Francis.

Jeremy Hunt: I recognise that the hon. Lady has legitimate concerns about the way that the whistleblower, who I think is one of her constituents or is near to her constituency, was treated. I have, as she requested, looked into that very carefully. She will understand that it would not be right or proper for me to comment on an individual case. She knows that, as a result of requests by her and fellow MPs, I looked into whether due process was followed in the case that she mentioned. All I will say is that bullying behaviour should not happen anywhere in the NHS. That is a very important part of the culture change that I want to see.

Kevin Foster: In Torbay, there are a number of concerns about access to primary care, due to issues of recruitment and retention of GPs. Recognising the comment that the Secretary of State made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), how does the Secretary of State see his statement today helping to improve this situation?

Jeremy Hunt: We have some fantastic primary care in Torbay. I remember visiting my hon. Friend during the election campaign and going to a hospice run by an absolutely inspirational lady. We need to build on those traditions, and modern technology offers us an opportunity to go even further. In the end, this is about having a less hospital-centric system and prevention rather than cure, and our great tradition of general practice will be our strongest asset in that change.

Sue Hayman: The idea of seven-day working sounds absolutely fantastic for supplying services, but in west Cumbria, where we struggle to deliver services five days a week, it sounds like nothing more than a fantastic pipe dream. I am aware that the Secretary of State understands the specific problems we have in west Cumbria, but I want to ask him about a letter that I recently wrote to him to do with Cockermouth hospital—a beautiful new hospital which sits half empty. Will he meet me and clinicians from that hospital to see how we can deliver and solve the problems in Cockermouth?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady and clinicians. I am aware of the problems in that health economy and I am aware that they are long-standing. They are a concern to me and I would be delighted to do anything I can to support her in helping to solve those problems.

Pauline Latham: I was shocked to hear the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) running down the NHS yet again. He obviously has not been watching the series on television about the Royal Derby hospital, or looked at its website, where most of the comments are incredibly positive. Also in Mid Derbyshire we have surgeries that wish to take some of the burden away from hospitals. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should be encouraging that, where they can offer services to save people from going to hospital?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree. I commend the Royal Derby, which is an excellent hospital, and thank my hon. Friend for mentioning it. It is really interesting: around the country the number of people per thousand who use A&E varies from 166 to 355—a dramatic variation—and a lot of that relates to the availability of good primary care services, which is why our plans for seven-day GP appointments are also a very important part of the programme.

Wes Streeting: I welcome the partnership on patient safety that is being announced today between Queen’s hospital in Romford and King George hospital in Ilford and the Virginia Mason Institute, and echo some of the comments made by my hon. Friends about the Government taking staff with them and looking at issues around pay and workforce. May I gently point out to the Secretary of State that it is now two months since I wrote to him about pressures in our local health economy and the future of our A&E department. Can he offset my disappointment by agreeing to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and other local MPs to discuss those issues?

Jeremy Hunt: I know that the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) secured a Westminster Hall debate on this yesterday, during which I hope the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) covered most of the issues he wants to address, but I am happy to arrange to meet him or to get the Under-Secretary of State for Health with responsibility for hospitals, my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer), to meet him to discuss those issues in more detail. The hospital trust that the hon. Gentleman talks about—Queen’s and King George are covered by the same trust—has been through a very challenging period. It is a big trust; it is going through special measures, but I think it has good new management. I think they have really turned things around, and that staff are to be absolutely commended. The link with Virginia Mason in Seattle will be as inspirational for them as it has been for me to see what is possible.

Andrew Stephenson: I welcome today’s statement about transformation of our NHS. Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the progress made by East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust, which came out of special measures about 12 months ago, and particularly the fact that a Health Service Journal and Nursing Times survey recently ranked the trust among the top 100 places to work, with improved staff engagement and morale, which is a huge transformation from where we were when the trust was put into special measures?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his passionate support for that trust through a very difficult period. I also thank him for giving us perhaps the single biggest insight into how to transform a hospital in difficulty: according to all the measures, the most important single thing is to engage with staff. If staff feel supported and listened to, the result is safer care for patients and better outcomes. That is something they have done in East Lancashire, and it is something that many other hospitals could learn from.

John Pugh: Many current failures in care are caused by poor integration of services, not the failure of a specific service. What, in the proposals announced, addresses that problem?

Jeremy Hunt: The integration of the health and social care systems, as talked about by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is a very big priority. It is a vision shared by all parties. That is part of delivering safe seven-day care. The consequences for the health and social care system if we do not have safe hospital care are people with much greater medical needs, creating much more pressure in the system, so it is part of the same picture.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and also, I think, for making two written statements. There are only 32 other written statements from Ministers. I remember that when I first got here, there would be 87 written statements on the last day of term, with no chance to scrutinise the Minister. Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said, has the Minister had a chance to look at my Ovarian Cancer (Information) Bill, which would help reduce the number of ovarian cancer deaths through earlier detection?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for that Bill. I hope that plans that NHS England will announce shortly about how we can improve early cancer detection will give him much encouragement. He will see that some of the things that he is campaigning for are actually going to happen.

Emily Thornberry: Everyone supports seven-day-a-week, 24-hour NHS care—who would not? But the bottom line is that there are insufficient resources and insufficient people at the moment for it to be possible to deliver those services. For the Secretary of State to try to blame the health unions for that is not fair, and there are people behind that. The tone of the statement that the Secretary of State made this morning at the King’s Fund has already caused alarm among GPs, and Maureen Baker, chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, said that this announcement
	“will sound…alarm bells for hardworking GPs who fear we will be next in line—even though we are already being pushed to our limits in trying to provide a safe five-day”
	a week
	“service for our patients.”

Jeremy Hunt: I do not blame doctors; I do not blame the unions. I blame Ministers from the hon. Lady’s Government who gave consultants an opt-out at weekends that has had a catastrophic impact on patient care. I am delighted that she supports seven-day care, but it was not in the Labour manifesto; it was in the Conservative manifesto, and we are putting in extra money—£5.5 billion more than Labour was promising—to ensure that we can pay for it.

Graham Evans: I welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced today in turning the NHS into a learning organisation rather than a denial machine. Does he agree that there should be a best practice industry standard for healthcare in this country, which learns and compares itself with other countries’ healthcare systems, such as Germany, France and Canada?

Jeremy Hunt: That is a very interesting idea, and I am happy to take it away. I am a strong believer in learning from best practice all over the world. Sometimes it is difficult to gather the data, but it is an interesting idea.

Barry Sheerman: The Secretary of State might be in aware that in Huddersfield we are having great difficulty in attracting and recruiting A&E specialists, nurses and GPs. He will know that I am more an education specialist than a health specialist, but given that this is an NHS reform statement, is it not time that we had a serious, fundamental look at how we educate and train everyone in our health service—doctors, nurses, technicians, the whole lot? At the moment it seems more appropriate to sometime in the 20th century than to looking forward in the 21st.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As part of what I said in my statement, we are looking at how we train doctors. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans) talked about creating a learning culture, and the big change that we need to make is creating a culture in which people feel supported to speak out about any concerns or anything on which they think they can see a way of doing something better. They must not feel that that could threaten their career prospects. We do not have that culture in the NHS at the moment, but we need it if the NHS is to be the world’s largest learning organisation, as I argued in a speech this morning. I think staff are up for it, but it is a big change.

Bernard Jenkin: I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his extraordinarily embracing response to the Public Administration Select Committee report on clinical incident investigation. We started less than a year ago with the germ of an idea, and it has turned into what amounts to a radical reform of safety investigation in the health service. That is a tribute to him and to the Committee’s witnesses, but it is a tribute to the health service itself that it has embraced the idea, which is a big change that I believe will be transformative.
	May I pick up on the Secretary of State’s reluctance to provide special legislation for the immunity of those giving evidence to the new patient investigation body? Will he keep an open mind on the subject? If he wants that body to be truly independent and to have a special status, he should remember that the marine accident investigation branch and the air accidents investigation branch have specific legislation to provide for such immunity. Public interest disclosure protection must not be challenged by freedom of information requests, given that freedom of information has been extended into areas where we never imagined it would go. We have to be specific in legislation that that cannot happen in this instance.

Mr Speaker: Too long—I hope the answer will be somewhat briefer.

Jeremy Hunt: It will, Mr Speaker.
	My hon. Friend’s idea is really interesting, and I am happy to take it up and explore whether we need to replicate that immunity so that we can get to the truth more quickly in a no-blame context.
	I thank my hon. Friend for the work of the Public Administration Select Committee. I think it is true to say that we would not have the new patient safety investigation service, modelled on the air accidents investigation branch, which has worked so well in the
	airline industry, if it had not been for the work of PASC. It brought the idea to my attention and it was a good idea, and I know that he will help me make sure that it is a success in practice as well.

Kate Green: I support the comments of my neighbours, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). Three years ago the new health deal for Trafford resulted in the reduction of overnight and weekend services at Trafford General hospital on the basis that patients would receive better specialist care at Wythenshawe hospital. Does the Secretary of State understand that local people feel that the process has been chaotic, opaque and unresponsive to their concerns, and will he undertake to review the decision as a matter of urgency?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Lady for the responsible approach that she took to the changes at Trafford general. Of course, I will listen to her concerns carefully, alongside those of her colleagues, and take them up with the NHS. Perhaps if she comes to the meeting that I am organising for her colleagues, that will provide an opportunity for me to do that.

Helen Whately: I welcome a huge amount of the statement, particularly about the balance between transparency and more autonomy and the combination of scrutiny and support. Does the Secretary of State agree that not only hospitals and GPs but community and social care services need to be 24/7?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend speaks with great knowledge about health matters, because of her previous job. [Hon. Members: “McKinsey.”] Yes, McKinsey, which does some important work for the NHS. She is absolutely right that we need to be able to discharge into the community on all seven days, and it is important that the primary care and social care systems are part of that change.

Liz McInnes: When does the Secretary of State intend to implement the recommendation of the Royal College of Pathologists and introduce the role of medical examiner, to provide independent scrutiny of deaths? That has been repeatedly delayed, despite the success of five pilot schemes and the fact that it was recommended in the Francis report.

Jeremy Hunt: That is an important recommendation, and the Government support it. We intend to implement it, but there are costs involved, which we are going through as part of the spending review process.

Tom Pursglove: Local people in Corby and east Northamptonshire want to see a truly seven-day NHS. One way of achieving that in our area is to get moving on the new urgent care centre at Kettering, which has attracted cross-party support. Some Members could learn valuable lessons from that project and from what has been going on in Northamptonshire. I thank Ministers for all that they have done in the past to help get that project moving. Will the Secretary of State do everything he can to help it come to fruition in the months ahead?

Jeremy Hunt: It sounds a promising project, and I will keep myself closely informed of its progress. We need to better integrate urgent care centres into the work of GPs and hospitals so that, for example, somebody’s GP medical record can be accessed in those centres and any advice that people get there can be seen by their hospital consultant or GP at a later date.

Rachael Maskell: I must first declare an interest as a state-registered health clinician who worked in acute medicine until the election.
	I have witnessed pilots of seven-day working, on the ground and across the country, that have just taken five-days-a-week services and stretched the same complement of staff to seven days a week, therefore not making the service any more efficient or safe. With £22 billion of efficiency savings, or cuts, how will we fund seven-day working?

Jeremy Hunt: A lot of the efficiency will come from seven-day working, and I do not agree with the hon. Lady that there will be a simple cost increase. The cost to a hospital of cranking down all its services on a Friday afternoon and then having to crank them up on a Monday morning is huge, and it is not efficient. Part of the savings will come from having more streamlined services that operate to a consistently high standard across the week.

Bob Blackman: Many of my constituents complain about the lack of availability of GP appointments at weekends and outside normal hours. The consequence of that is that people who are ill turn up at A&E, causing pressure on it. I know that my right hon. Friend is taking action on that, but what is he doing to ensure that we have proper seven-days-a-week working across the NHS in primary care as well as in hospitals?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that our manifesto commitment was to a true seven-day service across hospitals and general practice. That is why, a few weeks ago, we announced in our new deal for general practice plans to recruit 5,000 GPs so that we can increase capacity and make sure that people can get routine appointments in the evenings and at weekends.

Jim Shannon: I welcome the NHS Pay Review Body’s report on seven-day services. There is a compelling case for such services, but contractual barriers to reform need to be addressed. Today’s statement refers to England and Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly has devolved responsibility for health. Will the Secretary of State consider having contact with the other UK regions, to assist them in engaging with national bodies based here on the mainland on how this important matter can be taken forward?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to do that. We can learn a lot from each other across the UK about how things are implemented. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in English health matters, because there is always a good read-across.

BBC Charter Review

John Whittingdale: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I have today laid before Parliament a BBC charter review consultation paper, copies of which are being deposited in the Libraries.
	The British Broadcasting Corporation is cherished and admired, not only in this country but around the world. At its best, the BBC sets international standards of quality. Even in a multimedia age, its most popular programmes continue to draw the country together in a shared experience, as happened with the London Olympics and world-beating dramas such as “Sherlock” and “Doctor Who”. The BBC reaches 97% of the UK population every week. It has a pivotal role in helping the United Kingdom to reach every corner of the globe, as reflected in the recent report that found that the UK leads the world in terms of soft power.
	The BBC is almost 100 years old. There have been many changes in that time, but the scale of change in the media sector over the last decade has been unprecedented. People are consuming a vast array of content from multiple sources, using technology that either did not exist or was in its infancy 10 years ago. Ten years ago, when a Government last conducted a charter review, millions of households still received just five television channels. Much of the social media that is now ubiquitous was, at the very most, at an embryonic stage. And few people owned the sort of devices that colleagues use daily, including in the Chamber.
	One of the few things that is certain about the media landscape of the future is that we cannot be sure how it will look, not least because we cannot predict how much will stay the same. Predictions about the demise of television have proven premature, undoubtedly in part because technology has evolved but also because many people still enjoy sitting down to watch television in their living room. Radio also retains an important place in people’s daily lives.
	The current BBC royal charter will expire at the end of 2016. This paper launches the Government’s consultation, which will inform a number of decisions that we need to take about the future of the BBC. The BBC Trust will play an integral role in this process, running a series of public seminars and events.
	Fundamentally, we need to consider four questions. What is the overall purpose of the BBC? What services and content should the BBC provide? How should the BBC be funded? How should the BBC be governed and regulated? The BBC has six public purposes, set out at the last charter review. They are sustaining citizenship and civil society; promoting education and learning; stimulating creativity and cultural excellence; representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities; bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; and delivering to the public the benefit of emerging communications. We need to ask whether these purposes are still relevant and right.
	One key task is to assess whether the idea of “universality” still holds water. With so much more choice in what to consume and how to consume it, we must at least question whether the BBC should try to be all things to all people—to serve everyone across every
	platform—or if it should have a more precisely targeted mission. Along with considering the mission and purpose of the BBC, we will consider whether the charter should also define its values, and what those values should be.
	The public purposes set the framework for what the BBC should be seeking to achieve, and the charter and supporting framework agreement articulate what activities it should undertake to accomplish this. The upcoming charter review will look at whether the scale and scope of the BBC is right for the current and future media environment and delivers what audiences are willing to pay for.
	Twenty years ago the BBC had two television channels, five national radio stations and a local radio presence. It is now the largest public service broadcaster in the world, with nine television channels, five UK-wide radio stations, six radio stations that reach one of the home nations, 40 local radio stations, and a huge online presence. The charter review will look at whether that particular range of services best serves licence fee payers. It will also assess what impact the BBC has on the commercial sector. There is evidence that the BBC helps to drive up standards and boosts investment, but also concern that public funding should not undermine commercial business models for TV, radio and online.
	The BBC is highly used and valued by the majority of people in this country. But variations exist, and there are particular challenges in reaching people from certain ethnic minority backgrounds and in meeting the needs of younger people, who increasingly access content online. Variations exist among the different nations and regions too. These are issues that we will need to take into account throughout the process of the charter review.
	The BBC’s global reputation is second to none and the BBC has a central role in determining how the UK is perceived internationally. Each week, BBC services reach more than 300 million people across the world, and the director-general has set a target of 500 million.
	The charter review also gives us an opportunity to look at the content the BBC provides, both in terms of the mixture of that content and its quality. We will analyse the way that the BBC’s content is produced. It is essentially shaped by two main elements—the broader regulatory framework including the terms of trade, which set out how the BBC and other broadcasters work with independent producers, and the BBC’s quota systems. The BBC executive has already made some radical proposals that would remove quotas and turn the BBC’s production arm into a commercial subsidiary. Those and other reform options will all need to be considered as part of the charter review. We will also look at BBC Worldwide, which contributes a substantial amount of additional income to the BBC.
	I turn now to the issue of BBC funding, a subject on which I know there are strongly held views. The licence fee has proven to be a very resilient income stream for the BBC, bringing in £3.7 billion last year, but it is not without its challenges. There is no easy solution to the broad question of how the BBC should be funded. The licence fee is levied at a flat rate, meaning that it is regressive. A subscription model could well be an option
	in the longer term, but cannot work in the short term because the technology is not yet in every home to control access.
	Therefore, the three options for change that are viable in the shorter term are a reformed licence fee, a household levy, or a hybrid funding model. In the longer term, we should consider whether there is a case for moving to a full subscription model. All have advantages and disadvantages.
	There are a number of other funding issues that the charter review will cover. I have already announced to the House that the BBC, rather than taxpayers, will meet the cost of free TV licences for over-75-year-olds. That will be phased in from 2018-19, with the BBC taking on the full costs from 2020-21. We also anticipate that the licence fee will rise in line with the consumer prices index over the next charter review period, but that is dependent on the BBC keeping pace with efficiency savings elsewhere in the public sector and it is also subject to whatever conclusions are drawn from the charter review about the BBC’s scope and purpose.
	I am grateful to David Perry QC, who has conducted an independent review of the sanctions appropriate for non-payment of the licence fee. The “TV Licence Fee Enforcement Review”, which is being published today, has concluded that decriminalisation would not be appropriate under the current funding model. The Government will now consider the case for decriminalisation as part of the charter review. I am today laying the “TV Licence Fee Enforcement Review” before Parliament and placing copies in the Libraries.
	More people—especially younger people—now access catch-up television exclusively online and without a licence. That is perfectly legal, as the existing legislation was drawn up when the iPlayer did not even exist. The Government have committed to updating the legislation. We will also analyse the merits of a contestable public service funding pot that would not just be limited to the BBC. And we will look again at what areas and activities should have their funding protected in future. Broadband roll-out, digital switchover, local television, the World Service and the Welsh language channel S4C were protected in the last charter period. As I announced the other day, the broadband ring-fence is to be phased out by 2020-21, and S4C will be expected to find similar savings to those in the BBC.
	Finally, there is the question of how the BBC is governed and regulated. Any organisation as large as the BBC needs effective governance and regulation. There have been occasions when the BBC has fallen well short of the standards that we expect of it. Editorial failures in the light of the Jimmy Savile revelations, the aborted digital media initiative, and the level of salaries and severance payments are among the issues that have caused disquiet. A lack of clarity in the BBC’s governance structures has contributed to those failures.
	The last charter brought in a new regulatory model, creating the BBC Trust, which exists to represent licence fee payers and hold the BBC to account. That structure has been widely criticised, and the chair of the BBC Trust has herself called for reform. There are three broad options: reforming the trust model, creating a unitary board and a new stand-alone oversight body, or moving external regulation wholesale to Ofcom. As with funding options, each of those has pros and cons.
	While the BBC’s editorial independence must not be compromised, that does not mean that we are not entitled to ask whether the BBC could be more transparent and to scrutinise how the BBC relates to the public, Parliament and Government. Any public body should be fully accountable to the public. People should be able to give voice to how well they think the BBC spends public money—some £30 billion over the current charter period—and how well it meets its myriad other responsibilities.
	The British Broadcasting Corporation is part of the fabric of this country and a source of great pride. We want it to thrive in the years to come. This consultation paper sets out the framework for what I hope will be a wide-ranging and informative national debate about the future of the BBC. I commend this statement to the House.

Chris Bryant: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for foresight of his statement, which he very honourably gave us one full hour before he stood up. That is right. It is not what some other Ministers have done in recent years, so I am grateful to him.
	The BBC is our cultural NHS. It is a beacon of accuracy and impartiality around the world. It is not just part of the national furniture; it is our greatest cultural institution. It is a miracle of constitutional engineering: independent of Government, yet funded by the public. It is the cornerstone of our creative industries, earning respect and money for Britain and British values. As the Secretary of State said, it drives up standards and boosts investment. The public love it and want it to inform, educate and entertain—and yes, that includes making “Strictly”, “Top Gear”, “The Voice”, “The Great British Bake Off” and big British sporting events on BBC Sport.
	That is why the Government’s attitude to the BBC rather mystifies me. The Secretary of State says that we should consider the matter of universality—the universality of the BBC. But surely the golden thread that runs through the concept of the BBC is that we all pay in and we should all get something out, including my constituents as well as his—those who like opera and those who like soap opera. He seems to accept that the licence fee should remain in place for the full period of the next charter. That is what I understood him to say. Can he confirm that clearly now? When will he close the iPlayer loophole, which he referred to last week, and what legislative method will he use?
	Referring to the promised £145.50 plus CPI interest rate increase in the licence fee, the chair of the BBC Trust said:
	“The word of a chancellor and a secretary of state you should be able to trust”,
	but the Secretary of State seems to cast doubt today on that deal. So what is it, deal or no deal? Will it be £145.50 plus CPI interest rate or not? [Laughter.] I am glad the Secretary of State liked that one.
	The Secretary of State says that the funding of S4C was protected in the previous charter period. That is not the view of anybody in Wales. It was not. It has actually been cut by one third since 2010, and he has just suggested that the further 20% cut to the BBC will mean a similar shrinkage to S4C. The proposal is barely mentioned in the Green Paper, so I presume that he is
	not really looking at it with any seriousness. Will he consult the Welsh Government and the Welsh people on the future of S4C and make sure that its future is as guaranteed as that of the BBC?
	The Green Paper asks whether the BBC should still broadcast Radio 1 and Radio 2. Where is the audience demand for that? Are people shouting: “What do we not want?”, “We don’t want Radio 2”, and “When do we not want it?”, “Now”? Of course they are not. Radio 1 and Radio 2 are the most popular radio stations in Europe. Why on earth is the Secretary of State even considering closing them down?
	The Secretary of State says the review will look at the “scale”—his words—of the BBC, a point repeated on page 4 of the Green Paper. Will he confirm that this is in direct contradiction of the recent negotiations with the BBC, when he said he would look not at the scale of the BBC, only at the purposes of the BBC? Is his real aim a smaller BBC? [Interruption.] I see the Minister for Culture and the Digital Economy nodding his head that it is his aim. I ask, because many will be worried that this is just what The Daily Telegraph predicted on 12 May, when it reported, “Tories go to war with the BBC”, because the Prime Minister was infuriated with its election coverage. Would it not be profoundly unpatriotic to seek to diminish the BBC and thereby diminish Britain? Has any Member ever met a foreigner who has said, “You know what? I love Britain, I just hate the BBC”?

Matthew Offord: I have.

Chris Bryant: You go on the wrong holidays! [Interruption.] Yes, probably in Russia—or Italy under Berlusconi.
	There are some things that we can agree on. The BBC always needs reform. The trust is bust. These three weeks prove it. Either the chair lip-syncs the director-general or, frankly, she undermines him. Whatever the new structure, and I favour a unitary executive board with the primary regulatory role being met by a board of Ofcom, the next charter must ensure that the Chancellor’s backroom, gun-to-the-head way of doing Government business with the BBC can never be repeated. The BBC is not a Government plaything, nor should it be a branch of the Department for Work and Pensions. It belongs to licence fee payers, and the public should have a say in its future, as the Secretary of State himself wrote earlier this year. Will he make sure that that is the case in future?
	This process has been utterly shabby from the outset. Since the Secretary of State stood at the Dispatch Box last week, he and his Department have breached the ministerial code: they gave the precise details of his plans to The Sunday Times last weekend; they issued a press release on Sunday morning laying out the membership of a new panel, which he has not even bothered to mention today; and they leaked the substance of and direct quotations from the Perry report to the Daily Mail yesterday. That means he has not just let you down, Mr Speaker, he has not just let the House down, but frankly he has let himself down. I would be angry, but I am just disappointed. Who briefed The Sunday Times and the Daily Mail? Was it a special adviser or a civil servant? Did the Secretary of State authorise the briefings? If not, has the relevant person been dismissed?
	That brings me to the panel the Secretary of State has set up. They may all be talented and clever, but what process did he use to select the membership? It certainly was not the Code of Practice for Ministerial Appointments to Public Bodies. Did he just get out his Rolodex and invite along all the people he had dinner with sometime last year? Most of the panel members have a direct financial interest and a conflict of interest with the BBC. The panel is to look at the BBC as a news provider and consider whether it should provide Radio 1 and Radio 2, yet three panel members run internet companies, another was managing director of a radio station, one runs the Arts Council and is, therefore, effectively a Government employee, and another runs a newspaper group. All of them are in direct competition with the BBC. How can they possibly be independent? Like Blofeld in “You Only Live Twice”, the Secretary of State has lined up a tank of piranhas, but he has not quite reckoned with the ingenuity of M and Bond in the shape of Judi Dench and Daniel Craig, who lined up to attack him yesterday.
	On BBC Worldwide, which the Secretary of Sate referred to in his statement, is he considering selling it off? On decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee, the Daily Mail said yesterday that the Perry report declares that it is “crystal clear” that the system should remain as it is. Is that an accurate quotation? The Secretary of State was very opaque on his plans, but will he follow the advice of the Perry report or not?
	The whole point of the BBC is that politicians should meddle with it only on very rare occasions. Yes, it is accountable to the public through Parliament and, yes, the charter renewal process gives Ministers a moment of great power over the corporation. But I urge the Secretary of State to curb his self-confessed inner free-market zealotry. With power comes responsibility. I will stand with him if he genuinely wants to strengthen the BBC, but, where he acts to undermine it or diminish it, I and Opposition Members will oppose him every step of the way.

John Whittingdale: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his recognition of our wish to co-operate with him by supplying the statement in advance. It is my intention that his party should have the opportunity to play a full role in what I hope is, as I said, a debate about the future of the BBC. I agree with many of his opening remarks about the importance of the BBC; indeed, they very much reflect my own. I share his admiration for many of the programmes that he mentioned. Even if I wanted to close down “Strictly Come Dancing”, which I do not, it would be completely wrong for the Government to decide which programmes the BBC should and should not make. It is, however, perfectly legitimate to ask that BBC programmes be distinct—that is part of the BBC’s overriding purpose and an aspect that we will consider—but the charter review is not about specific programmes, however much certain newspaper writers would like to think it is.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s specific questions, we have made it clear that the licence fee is frozen under the terms of the current charter. During the future charter period, it will not be possible to move towards a subscription model, or something like that, in the short term because
	the technology is not there, but we will consider whether in the coming charter we should examine how it might become an option in the future; but that is an open question. The other issue he raised, which is a more immediate challenge, was the iPlayer loophole. It is our intention to try to close that in the next year, and we will introduce legislative proposals to do so.
	On the agreement with the BBC over the future rise in the licence fee, the words I used in my statement were precisely the words set out not only in my answer to the hon. Gentleman’s urgent question last week, but also in the letter sent to the director-general of the BBC. It hardly represents reneging on an agreement, when all we have done is re-quote what was in the letter.
	On S4C, we have made it clear that we will consult the Welsh Government—and indeed the Scottish and Northern Irish Governments—during the charter review, although the question of funding for S4C is a distinct matter that will obviously be considered during the spending review and other things. Having said that, we will, as part of the charter review, be considering the BBC’s involvement in supporting and funding S4C.
	On Radio 1 and 2, which the hon. Gentleman got very excited about, I certainly think there is a strong role for BBC Radio in providing a different type of genre and opportunity, including for unsigned bands, which would not have the same opportunity in the commercial sector. Radio 1 plays a valuable role in fulfilling that objective, and there is no proposal to close Radio 1 or 2. All these things are part of the wider debate about the BBC’s place in the broadcasting landscape, and however much people might wish the statement to contain details of exactly what the Government wish to do, it does not; it is part of a debate, and that applies as well to the question of scale and scope.
	The hon. Gentleman asked if I was considering scope. We are considering it; it would be extraordinary not to, given the amazing change that has taken place and the proliferation of choice over the past 10 years. The question of whether the BBC still needs to do everything it set out to do 10 years ago seems to me to be a legitimate question. I am grateful, however, for his support on the reform of governance arrangements. I am interested that he has reached a conclusion, even if we are still open-minded about it, but I look forward to his giving greater details during the charter review.
	The hon. Gentleman was very critical about the funding arrangements that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I agreed with the BBC, but I would draw his attention to the remarks of his colleague, the shadow Chancellor, who said:
	“All public institutions including the BBC I think have to do their part. We have always said that sensible savings at this time are really important and I don’t think the BBC can be excluded from that.”
	As for the hon. Gentleman’s claimed breaches of the ministerial code, I have to say that I am not responsible for what appears in The Sunday Times, the Daily Mail or any of the other newspapers, some of whose accounts of what is in the charter review process appear to be entrants for the Booker prize for fiction. On the advisory panel, I merely say that it is not a public body, but a group of individuals, each of whom has considerable experience and knowledge in their particular fields, and they are there to provide advice, nothing more.
	Finally, the hon. Gentleman said that the BBC was very precious and that we should only meddle with it on rare occasions. I think that a charter review that comes around once every 10 years probably meets the definition of a rare occasion, and it is entirely appropriate, given that the charter expires at the end of next year, that we take this opportunity to have the very full debate I have set out today.

John Redwood: Is it not now time for us to have a BBC England, to match BBC Scotland, and is it not the case that many people in England deeply resent the way in which their country is being balkanised and broken up under some kind of EU plan and that they do not want their much-loved broadcaster assisting the EU in doing that?

John Whittingdale: On my right hon. Friend’s first point, the BBC has a duty to serve the nations and regions, and while there is a specific BBC executive responsible for England, nevertheless, as I suspect might become apparent during the debate, there is a strong feeling that the BBC needs to do more to serve particular regions. On the BBC’s role in any discussions on our EU membership, as he is aware, the BBC is under a duty to maintain objectivity and impartiality, which I hope it will bear in mind, particularly during what I suspect will be quite a controversial debate.

John Nicolson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for bringing his Green Paper before the House and for the opportunity to read it in advance.
	There have been lurid headlines anticipating what the right hon. Gentleman might say, presumably because of the lurid comments made by so many of his BBC-phobic colleagues on the Tory Back Benches. In the event, however, the Green Paper asks a lot of the right questions, including: how to anticipate viewers’ changing needs in the light of new technology; how best to provide for the nations and regions, as well as for minorities and young people; why many management figures in the BBC are so horrendously overpaid—an excellent question; and, crucially, how to fund the BBC going forward.
	It is the SNP’s belief that responsibility for broadcasting in Scotland should transfer from Westminster to Holyrood. Scotland collects £320 million of licence fee revenue annually, but the BBC is only given £175 million to spend in Scotland every year, which is manifestly unfair. I want to ask the Secretary of State two questions. Why was the Scottish Government not consulted and asked for their views in advance of the Green Paper, given Lord Smith’s recommendations? Secondly, on funding, he has presumably anticipated the effect a new funding model would have on the licence fee per household. It is currently £145.50. What would its upper cap be, per household, under any new system?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman brings a particular knowledge and experience, as a former employee of the BBC, although I am sure he was not one of those within the corporation whom he recognised as possibly being overpaid. He raised two specific questions. On the involvement of the Scottish Government, the Smith commission agreement set out that there should be full consultation, and we are committed to that. I wrote to the Scottish Government about the terms of reference
	for the charter review, and I intend to remain in touch with them during the debate over the next three months. We are obviously interested to hear their views.
	On the transfer of responsibility for the BBC to Holyrood, I point out that it is the British Broadcasting Corporation and that Scotland, although he might not wish it, remains part of Britain, so I fear I might disappoint him on that.
	Lastly, the future of the licence fee will be considered during the charter review, and the hon. Gentleman can obviously make representations on that point, along with any other matters.

Damian Collins: The Secretary of State set out the concerns about the governance of the BBC and mentioned three options for reform. Is it his expectation that the BBC Trust, as we know it today, will go as a consequence of the charter renewal and that there will be a new model for governing the BBC?

John Whittingdale: It is fairly clear that the BBC Trust does not work in its present form. The shadow Secretary of State used stronger language than I did in saying that it is “bust”, but it is widely accepted that it is not working properly. What should replace it is an important issue that we shall consider in the course of the charter review. The need for change is clear.

Ben Bradshaw: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s statement and the Green Paper which, on the face of it, certainly looks more balanced than I had feared and more balanced, I expect, than the Murdoch press had hoped. Will the Secretary of State reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and his own critics in the other place—senior Conservative politicians—on the make-up of the advisory panel, which seems very skewed with people who have been hostile to the BBC? Also, how are the public, who are after all the BBC’s stakeholders, going to be let in to this conversation?

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. The advisory panel is, as I said, an advisory body, and it does not play a formal role. As for its composition, let me point out that it includes, among others, the current president of the Voice of the Listener and Viewer, who is also the former chairman of Ofcom, and a former member of the BBC executive board. These are people who bring considerable knowledge and expertise. I think all fair commentators would recognise that they are well qualified to express views—but that is all they will be doing: expressing views. The responsibility for charter review remains with the Government. As for the involvement of the public, which the right hon. Gentleman raised and which is equally important, it is the intention of the BBC Trust to hold a number of public meetings. We hope that the trust will work to ensure that the public have every opportunity to have an input to the charter review process.

Jason McCartney: It was a pleasure to meet Professor Brian Cox, who was in Parliament yesterday to open the parliamentary education centre. Does the Secretary of State agree that his programmes, such as “Wonders of the Universe” and “Stargazing Live”, represent the BBC at its best because such programmes not only educate and inform, but entertain?

John Whittingdale: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I was sorry to miss the opening of the education unit; it was fantastic that Professor Cox was able to come. On the specific point, I share my hon. Friend’s admiration for those programmes. They help to fulfil the BBC’s purpose of educating, but as he has recognised, education is achieved much more easily if it can be entertaining at the same time. Brian Cox achieves both of those purposes.

Paul Farrelly: After last week’s raid on the BBC, I want briefly to quote from February’s Select Committee report “Future of the BBC”. The Committee recommended
	“that the Government seek cross-party support for establishing an independent review panel now on the 2017 Charter, along the same lines as the previous Burns’ model, led by a figure similar to Lord Burns…We expect sufficient time to be allocated for this and for the development of, and consultation on, Green and White Papers”,
	yet we now have a rather different unilaterally announced panel, and a Green Paper issued, unlike with the last charter review, before any outside input or consultation at all. Will the Secretary of State explain why, for the second time in a week, he has so radically departed from what he so strongly recommended while Chair of the Select Committee fewer than five months ago?

John Whittingdale: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the time available before the expiry of the charter is now quite limited. We want to achieve a debate, and in time to reach firm views for renewal, but it would be difficult to set up an independent advisory panel within the current time period. That is why we decided not to go down that road, although I stand by what is in the Select Committee report—that there is an argument for doing so. The advisory panel is not an independent panel; it is simply an advisory group to provide advice. What is much more important, as the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) suggested, is for the public to have a full opportunity to get involved so that we get as wide a cross-section of views as possible, and we have put arrangements in place to ensure that.

Julian Knight: My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on the launch of this extensive consultation process and the information laid before us today. It seems that there is little off limits. However, I and many of my Solihull constituents will be slightly disappointed that there are many mentions within the document of the Scots, Irish and Welsh, but little mention of the unequal position for the English regions, particularly the west midlands. For every licence fee bought in my region, we receive back only £14.50 in investment. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will press top-heavy BBC management to correct this unfair situation?

John Whittingdale: I am aware of the widely held view that the BBC needs to do more to serve individual regions. In the case of my hon. Friend’s region, I know there was a recent debate on the topic in Westminster Hall, in which he participated. It is indeed wholly appropriate to consider this issue in the course of charter review, and I hope my hon. Friend will continue to make his points while that happens.

Nia Griffith: No one on the obscurely appointed panel is from Wales. The Secretary of State has just said that he will consult the Welsh Assembly
	Government on the charter review and that the funding is to be decided separately. He is anticipating a further 20% cut to S4C on top of the 32% already implemented since 2010. In view of all that, what guarantee can he give, or what structure would he like to see put in place to ensure, that S4C will have some funding for the future? Otherwise, it will simply be unable to plan ahead.

John Whittingdale: The funding by the Government of S4C, along with all the other elements of Government expenditure, will obviously be considered at the time of the spending review. There is a commitment for the next couple of years. I am aware of the concerns of S4C, and I briefly spoke to its chairman last night. I hope to have another opportunity to discuss this and other matters with him and his colleagues in the near future.

Peter Heaton-Jones: There is a great deal that I, too, welcome in this document. Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a mistake if this became a debate solely—important though this is—about value for money, particularly as between the different services that the BBC provides? I specifically mention local radio, and there is a figure in the document that could be construed as meaning that BBC local radio is the most expensive of the BBC’s radio services. As someone who spent 20 years in it, I can say that it is a very efficient service. In my area, BBC Radio Devon is certainly greatly prized.

John Whittingdale: I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of BBC local radio. It seems to me that it serves a very valuable purpose, which is not served by the commercial sector at all. As for the cost, I am not sure about BBC Devon, but my visits to BBC Essex certainly gave me the impression that it has not been blessed with huge amounts of cash in recent times.

Nigel Dodds: I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to consult the Northern Ireland Executive on the charter review. However, let me say on behalf of many of my constituents that there will be deep disappointment that there is not going to be an early move on the issue of decriminalisation and sanctions for non-payment of the licence fee. I think that is a big mistake. Will the Secretary of State assure me that this will happen as soon as possible? It is also our view that we should move as quickly as possible to the subscription model for the BBC and get rid of the regressive, unfair current funding arrangements.

John Whittingdale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, and I can give him the assurance that the Northern Ireland Executive will be involved in the same way as other Governments in the home nations. As for decriminalisation, Mr David Perry has produced an extremely thorough analysis. As I have only just placed it in the Library, I can quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman will not have had a chance to look at it, but it raises a number of quite serious problems with decriminalisation that would need to be addressed if we went down that road. The Select Committee report also identified problems, but the Perry report goes further in pointing out other practical problems that would need to be solved. I encourage the right hon. Gentleman to go away and look at that. The issue will be considered as part of the charter review, along with the future of the licence fee, which, as he has observed, has some disadvantages.

John Howell: I used to be a presenter for BBC World Service Television, so I am not one of the BBC-phobic MPs on the Conservative Back Benches, but I understand the need for reform. Independent production in this country is a particularly vibrant and healthy sector. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that during the review he will examine the relationship between the BBC and the independent sector in order to ensure that it becomes less bureaucratic than it is at present, and takes full advantage of that vibrancy and health?

John Whittingdale: The growth of the independent production sector has been one of the outstanding successes of the last 10 years or so. It has been assisted in large part by the BBC’s independent production quota, and also by the terms of trade. Obviously there have been big changes, and we will need to examine those. As my hon. Friend knows, the BBC itself has come up with a proposal for 100% competition for all BBC commissioning. It is an interesting proposal, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that I shall bear in mind the continuing success of the independent production sector throughout this process.

John Martin McDonnell: In his statement, the Secretary of State did not make a single reference to the BBC’s staff. I find that surprising, given the concerns that he expressed in his previous role. The staff are now extremely anxious about their future because of the resettlement fee, and this will not reassure them. Will the Secretary of State tell us how he will ensure that they are involved more thoroughly in the consultation process?

John Whittingdale: I think that members of the BBC Trust will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. I certainly think that members of the BBC staff, and, indeed, former members—a number of whom appear to be in the Chamber this afternoon—will have views that they will wish to contribute. I am anxious to hear from existing employees, and I hope that the a look at the Green Paper may reassure them a little, because its content is some distance away from what some reports suggested it would contain.

Matt Warman: As a journalist, I had the pleasure of covering a huge amount of the BBC’s programme output, and, subsequently, the launch of the iPlayer. I thought that those were excellent services, but I also endured the launching of an endless stream of apps that seemed to have very little public value. The problem was that there was very little focus on the precise purpose of any specific product. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when it comes to services such as football on the BBC—which would serve very well on commercial channels— versus, for instance, a feature section on the website, we should be a lot clearer about what the BBC is actually for?

John Whittingdale: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. In its online activities, the BBC is operating in a highly competitive space where there are a large number of commercial providers, which is why there has been concern about its impact on commercial activities. That is something that we shall need to consider, as is the exact nature of BBC content. The content currently has to accord with one of the public purposes of the BBC,
	but it is fair to say that it is almost impossible to think of any programme that could not be deemed to meet at least one of those public purposes, so they may well need to be drafted more tightly.

Jonathan Edwards: Of major concern in Wales is the future of S4C, which has made real-terms cuts of 36% since 2010. Today the Secretary of State reiterated his view that the channel needed to make further savings. Does he not recognise that further reductions could fundamentally challenge the future of S4C and the independent production sector in Wales?

John Whittingdale: S4C is publicly funded, and I do not think it is possible to exempt any publicly funded body from the necessity of seeking greater efficiency savings and making a contribution to the overall objective of mending our economy. I shall certainly want to discuss the issue further with S4C—as I said earlier, I had an opportunity to talk to representatives briefly last night—but I am also discussing it with my colleagues in the Welsh Office.

Stephen Phillips: During the last Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee examined severance payments for BBC executives. We reported that our examination
	“exposed a dysfunctional relationship between the BBC Executive and the BBC Trust that casts doubt on… the BBC's governance model.”
	My right hon. Friend clearly believes that the model of the trust is broken. Will he go further, and do what it is obvious to me, to my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) and to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) that he should do? Will he rule out reforming the trust, and indicate that either some independent body or Ofcom must have oversight of the BBC?

John Whittingdale: I think it was the experience of witnessing some of the exchanges that took place between members of the Public Accounts Committee and representatives of the BBC and the trust that convinced us that the present arrangement was not working. As for ruling things out or in, I think it would be wrong for me to rule anything out before we have even begun the consultation. I must say, however, that I have considerable sympathy with what my hon. and learned Friend has said.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Secretary of State’s very clear statement of intent. Will he assure us that he will do three things during the charter review? First, will he talk to DUP Members, who represent the single largest section of the community in Northern Ireland? I think there is good evidence to suggest that the BBC in Northern Ireland has been totally biased against our community, and I feel that a good conversation with the Secretary of State about these matters would be helpful. Secondly, will he ensure that the World Service is included in the review? As he knows, we pay 73p a year in fees for that wonderful service, and I hope that it will be protected for the future.
	Thirdly, will the Secretary of State look into the issue of Twitter? I understand that up to 200 people work for Twitter at the BBC. That means a wage bill of five or six million quid, at a very generous estimate.

John Whittingdale: Of course I shall be happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. I hope that he and his party will become actively involved in the charter review process, and I look forward to discussing that with them in due course. I entirely share his admiration for the World Service. I mentioned that the United Kingdom was recently rated No. 1 in the list of the most effective proponents of soft power, and the World Service is an essential part of that. Having being involved in discussions about, for instance, what was happening in Ukraine in my previous capacity as chairman of the all-party group, I know how important the service is, and I want it to continue.
	I am sorry; I have forgotten the hon. Gentleman’s final point.

Ian Paisley Jnr: Twitter.

John Whittingdale: Oh—Twitter. I am not sure that it is for me to say how many people the BBC should employ tweeting, but if the figure that the hon. Gentleman gave is correct, it does seem an awful lot. Perhaps the BBC would like to examine that when it is seeking additional efficiency savings.

Peter Bone: I thank the Secretary of State for making his important announcements to the House first, thus allaying fears that they had been leaked to the press.
	During his exchanges with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), did the Secretary of State say that we had stuck with the licence fee because it was not currently possible to change to a subscription service for technical reasons? If so, what are those technical reasons?

John Whittingdale: What I said was that there might be attractions in moving, in due course, towards at least an element of subscription—and that is something that we will consider during the review—but it would not be possible to introduce a subscription system at the moment, because such a system requires the ability to switch off people who do not pay the subscription, and most households do not have the technology that would enable that to happen.

Ian Lucas: The Secretary of State is right in saying that BBC local radio is a highly valued service. Unfortunately, it does not exist in Wales. Does he think that the contestable public fund to which he referred in his statement would be available to provide such a service?

John Whittingdale: We have not decided whether there should be a contestable fund, but if there were, its purpose would be the promotion of public service programming by other potential providers. I think that, in theory, if someone wanted to make an approach to establish a local Welsh radio station, it would be a possible candidate, but nothing has been decided at this stage.

Matthew Offord: Reading Hansard this week, I realised that I was not the only Member of the House to have witnessed not only political correctness at the BBC but nepotism and, for some if not others,
	inflated salaries. Given that the charter renewal will provide an opportunity to look at the funding of the BBC, does the Secretary of State expect it to act in a more commercial manner in the future?

John Whittingdale: The BBC gains considerable income from its commercial activities, which are carried out by BBC Worldwide. How that is done is something we will want to look at. However, one of the principal reasons that £3.7 billion of public money goes towards supporting the BBC is to support programming that is in the national interest and that has great public importance, but which would not necessarily be produced commercially.

Gavin Robinson: Mr Speaker, last night you missed the focus in the Chamber on my experience, or inexperience, of how the House operates. In preparing to come to the House, however, I watched a very good BBC production, the original version of “House of Cards”. I am not going to put about any stick this afternoon, but I watched “House of Cards” through Netflix, which costs £6.99 a month. When I watch BBC iPlayer, I do it through Now TV, which costs £5.99 a month. Even when I add those two together, it is still better value for me than the licence fee, from which I do not get any great benefit. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions have taken place with organisations such as Netflix, Now TV, blinkbox, Flixster and other successful organisations—[Interruption.] Now TV is Sky—that are succeeding in providing a good service and a version of media that more people wish to access?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman rightly identifies those services, which have recently entered the market and are proving extremely successful. Some might be cheaper than the licence fee and some might be more expensive, but the one thing they have in common is that people can choose whether they want to subscribe to them, which of course they cannot do with the licence fee. I remain an admirer of the original version of “House of Cards”, which he rightly says was produced by the BBC, and of the very clever adaptation for the American market, which was done by Netflix. Both versions are examples of superb drama, and I say that not just because the author is my daughter’s godfather.

Martin Vickers: Somewhat inevitably, we as politicians judge the BBC in a slightly different way from the majority of our constituents, who just want an organisation that provides them with their favourite programmes, such as “EastEnders” and “Match of the Day”, and stations such as BBC Radio 2. May I urge my right hon. Friend to take a cautious approach to some of the suggestions that have been put forward in the past week or two? We should not assume that our constituents will thank us if they end up having to pay more to watch their favourite programmes. Can he assure me and my constituents that their interests, in terms of what it costs them to watch their favourite programmes, will be given serious consideration?

John Whittingdale: I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I have a lot of sympathy with him. The existing cost of the BBC licence fee is substantial for many families on low incomes. What we have said is that, subject to the conditions that I set out in my statement, we anticipate
	that the licence fee will rise in line with inflation from the beginning of the next charter period, but that will still represent a real-terms freeze. The BBC is quite at liberty to make the case, during the charter review, for more funding in order to provide more, but I would need a lot of convincing before going down the road of increasing the cost to families, for the reason that my hon. Friend has described.

Barry Sheerman: Does the Secretary of State agree that this is an important time of change in broadcasting generally? The BBC is a national institution that dominates our country in many ways, but we also have a very intimate relationship with it. We have all grown up with it, and we know it intimately. We all have our foibles, and one of mine is that I cannot stand some of our broadcasters and would like to see them changed. I am thinking particularly of the family that seems to dominate “Question Time”. There are two great challenges for the BBC at the moment. It is British, and there is a bunch of people locally, in Britain, who would love to get in there and dismember it. We all know who they are—a mixture of Russian oligarchs, pornographers and goodness knows who else—but the real challenge is not the small people but the Googles and the global media people. They represent the real challenge, and we must protect the BBC, because it is British, and help it to stand up against that kind of globalisation.

John Whittingdale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not waiting for his invitation to go on “Any Questions”. I completely agree with him about the importance of the BBC. It is an immensely important institution, and our purpose during the charter review is to look at ways of strengthening and modernising it, precisely because of the technological developments and new services that have come about in the last 10 years. It needs to be modernised, but I certainly do not wish to destroy it or undermine it.

Edward Argar: Like the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his reassurance that decriminalising non-payment of the licence fee will be considered in the context of charter renewal, although I am disappointed that it will not happen sooner. Will my right hon. Friend reassure me that he remains genuinely open-minded—notwithstanding the issues identified in the Perry report—towards the decriminalisation of non-payment of the licence fee?

John Whittingdale: I understand that there are strong feelings right across the House on the issue of decriminalisation. Indeed, the report produced by the Committee that I chaired during the last Parliament made it plain that the Committee also agreed with decriminalisation. Having said that, the Perry report raises some very real challenges that would need to be overcome if we were to go down that road, and we will have to take those into account during the charter renewal debate.

Diana R. Johnson: Many of my constituents value highly the local radio station, BBC Radio Humberside—no more so than in 2007 when large parts of Hull were flooded. The station
	provided essential information to people at that time. I am concerned at the Secretary of State’s saying that local people would be able to put forward their views at public meetings, because such meetings are not often held in areas such as Hull; they tend to be held in places such as Leeds. Will there be any other opportunities for local people to feed in their real concerns about the possible changes?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point up the extremely important role that local radio plays, particularly at times of local disasters. She has given the example of what happened in Hull. I know that BBC local radio also played a part in a process that had a rather happier outcome—namely, the nomination of Hull as the city of culture. On the question of public meetings, the way in which they are organised will be a matter for the BBC Trust. The hon. Lady will see when she reads the Green Paper in detail that we have tried to give people every opportunity to contribute, including through writing in to the Department and making their views known online.

Tom Pursglove: In the past, I have asked the Secretary of State about the possibilities surrounding the BBC diversifying its streams of revenue. For example, it benefits from a huge archive. What consideration will be given, during the charter review process, to opening up that archive online and perhaps enabling people to download material for a small charge?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend makes an important point. One of the BBC’s great assets is its extraordinary history of great programming, which still has value. I know that the BBC is looking into how it might make that available through the BBC archive online, and that is certainly something that has the potential to provide it with an additional source of revenue.

Sammy Wilson: So long as the BBC is guaranteed a source of income, whether through the licence fee or the proposed household levy, there will be no incentive for it to address its well-documented, massively wasteful expenditure or the issue of bias—whether it is left-wing bias, pro-EU bias or man-made climate change bias—which so annoys millions of people across the United Kingdom. Does the Secretary of State not agree that the only way of giving the BBC an incentive to address those issues is to give people the choice of whether they wish to pay for it or not?

John Whittingdale: The hon. Gentleman makes the case for moving towards a subscription model, which, as I have said, in the longer term is an option that should be considered. He will have the opportunity to make that case again in the course of charter renewal. He raised a separate issue about BBC bias. At the moment, complaints about bias are examined by the BBC Trust. Whether that is the right place and whether it should be done externally by an independent are questions that we will want to consider as part of charter renewal.

Kevin Foster: I agree with the Secretary of State that the BBC across the UK is cherished and admired, not least BBC Radio Devon. Productions that show life across the UK are a vital part of the BBC’s public purpose, but does he agree that that must be
	linked with such content being created across the UK in order for local communities to feel properly represented by and valued by their BBC?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend is right, in that the BBC’s content should reflect all the different parts of the UK but as part of the indie quota one of the things we achieved was that commissions have been placed right across the UK. During the short time I was able to spend at a reception last night for broadcasters and producers in Wales I met several small independent production companies from Wales which have been very successful in providing programming, not just for S4C, but for the BBC and indeed other broadcasters.

Jeremy Lefroy: Like the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), the Secretary of State and hundreds of millions of people around the world, I greatly value the World Service, which is almost always a voice of truth and sanity. But to compete with the other international stations, both on radio and television, the World Service and World Service Television will need greater investment in the coming years. Where does my right hon. Friend think that will come from?

John Whittingdale: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. As I indicated, the role of the World Service is vital, particularly given Russia’s huge investment in its propaganda outlets and China’s investment in its broadcasting. The need for an impartial and respected voice of truth, which is what the World Service represents, is greater today than perhaps it has been for a long time. As he knows, the funding of the World Service was transferred to the BBC but it is nevertheless protected. Again, we will need to look at that during the charter review.

Point of Order

Stephen Doughty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the past couple of hours there has been an announcement that more than 720 jobs may be at risk at the Tata speciality steels division in Rotherham. Obviously, that is devastating news for many hon. Members who unfortunately cannot be in the House because of constituency business. It reflects the wider challenges facing the steel industry and energy-intensive industries more generally, which I know is a matter of concern to Members on both sides of the House. We had a constructive debate with the new steel Minister in Westminster Hall this week, but this devastating news has come out since that debate. Have you received notice of any intention for a statement to be made by the steel Minister on this news, and on the steps the Government are taking to stand up for the steel industry in the UK?

Mr Speaker: The short answer is that I have received no indication of an intended Government statement on the matter. However, the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the means available to him to probe the Government on this subject before we depart for the summer recess. I do not know whether it will be possible for him to air his thoughts further today from the Back Benches—that is one option and there will be other options on Monday and Tuesday, which he does not need me to spell out for him. I am grateful to him for putting that important matter, which will be of widespread concern, on the record.

BILL PRESENTED
	 — 
	Criminal Cases Review Commission (Supplementary Powers) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Andy McDonald, supported by Keir Starmer, Grahame Morris, John McDonnell and Andy Slaughter, presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Appeal Act 1995 to make provision about supplementary powers for the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to secure information from public bodies; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 11 March 2016, and to be printed (Bill 60).

Summer Adjournment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.—(Guy Opperman.)

Pauline Latham: I wish to discuss Derby City Council’s decision to close the cattle market in Derby with one week’s notice. There has been a cattle market in Derby since the 12th century but within one week, with no consultation with anybody, the council has decided to close it, depriving local farmers of the opportunity to bring their cattle calmly and sensibly to a market close by. Once this market has closed and been demolished—that is what the council plans to do—people will have to go to Leek, Newark or further afield. The cattle that go to this well-used market will face additional stress and longer journeys, and farmers will have much greater fuel costs. As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, farmers struggle to make a living as it is and the extra fuel costs will cause some of them to cease farming. Some people have been going to the cattle market since the more recent one opened.
	The problem is that Derby City Council has spent years and years not investing—it does that with many of its buildings—so it is now trying to say, “It will cost £190,000 in lost revenue, and we cannot afford this because of Government cuts.” However, this is actually about good housekeeping in Derby. The council claims that £2 million-worth of funding will be required to bring this market and the wholesale market up to scratch, but that is because it has not bothered to look after it for many, many years. That is a failure of Derby City Council’s local government strategy of downgrading everything and not spending money on proper investment and good housekeeping, but spending money on its pet projects.
	I have received representations from farmers and from local people on this issue, and councillors feel very aggrieved that nothing was said before a week ago. Last night, the council voted to close the market without any more ado. The council is not only going to close it; it is going to demolish it and sell the site off for business units. I am not against business units, but we need a cattle market in the area. The problem we have with Derby City Council is that it wishes to ignore what the countryside is about, because it has only one farm within the city boundary and it does not care about farmers and what they are doing. This closure is a retrograde step, because Derby is the centre for many rural communities who come into Derby to bring their cattle. The auctioneers have been there for many years and this market is a centre of excellence—or it was until the council decided to close it. It does not have to close until next year, when the leases run out, so the council could have undertaken a better study in order to decide on its viability or whether there were alternatives and other people would be prepared to invest in it.
	As I have said to the Deputy Leader of the House before, Derby City Council does not care about anybody outside its boundary. The council does not care that this is the centre for the farmers, it does not care about the welfare of the animals and it does not care about the people’s livelihoods that it is a affecting, because it says that this is nothing to do with Derby. The council is riding roughshod over these interests. The Government should be looking at this and saying, “You cannot just
	blame it on Government cuts.” That is what the council does, but this is not down to Government cuts; it is down to very bad housekeeping. I would like this House to examine this at some point in the future to stop councils riding roughshod over the will of the people.
	Derby City Council does not do the same thing with other buildings. Buildings such as Allestree hall in my constituency have been going to rack and ruin for many years because the council has not invested in it. It has a golf course attached to it and the council could sell it off; it keeps promising to sell it off but it does nothing. The trouble is that when somebody eventually buys it and develops it, they will have to spend two, three, four or perhaps 10 times as much as they would have had to spend 10 years ago. Can we examine how we can make local authorities make good housekeeping decisions about the buildings they own, now and in the future?

Graham Allen: My elation at being called first from the Opposition Benches is matched only by the slight annoyance that I felt yesterday when I spent six hours in here without being called. But I am delighted and really grateful to be called to speak today.
	In the first of my three brief points, may I ask whether it is possible, in this day and age, for the Procedure Committee to consider having a list of speakers for a debate on the back of the Speaker’s Chair, so that colleagues can have some way of managing their day sensibly? Although Members will obviously be in the Chamber well before they speak and well after they speak, they will be able to plan their days more effectively.

Jake Berry: That is an absolutely excellent point. In a modern Parliament, there should be no reason why we cannot have more control over who speaks and when they speak. I wish to put it on the record that I am delighted that the Deputy Speakers are not hiding the lists as well as they may have done in the past. At least we can get some information, but having a list on the back of the Speaker’s Chair will be even more helpful.

Graham Allen: Indeed, that is a welcome development. Communication channels, even informal ones, should be established. We could take this a little further and ensure that this place attracts Members more seriously, rather than have them undergo this sort of endurance test before they can make a point of importance in a debate.
	Going from the micro to the macro, my second point is about English devolution. Colleagues in the House—I look to some of those on the SNP Benches—will no doubt vouch for the fact that I have served my time on the Scotland Bill and I hope I made some helpful contributions. For me, that was really a warm-up for English devolution, which affects an even larger number of people in the Union than the Scotland Bill, important and essential though that is.
	The Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill is in the other place at the moment. It has been scrutinised carefully on the Floor of the House, which means that everyone has been able to contribute to what is, arguably, the most important Bill that will come before this House over the next five years.
	I do not wish to get sidetracked on to English votes for English laws, which is a relatively straightforward and perhaps minor procedural matter that has very little to do with the devolution of power to the localities, cities, regions and councils of England. The proposal is misnamed. It is in fact English MPs’ votes for English laws, which is yet another Westminster bubble issue. Devolution is about how we all exercise power in the localities and about how electors and members of the public can see that they are in control of their politics. That is where we need to get to. I hope very much that the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill will come to this place briskly in September, that colleagues from all parts of the House will consider it and work on it, and that it goes as far as we have gone with our Scottish friends on the Scotland Bill.
	What is good about devolving power to Scotland is that Scottish people can rightly take control of their own destinies and lives as much as is humanly possible within a Union and a federation of nations. I would welcome that 100%. I have sat through the proceedings on the Scotland Bill to learn all the lessons. One of the lessons for England is to do with financial devolution. We need to ensure that there is income tax assignment so that local government—whether it is based on combined authorities, regions or whatever people in England wish it to be—can go forward and people can take control.
	What unites Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish people and their representatives on this issue is the fact that Whitehall has had its day. It is a massive over-centralised beast that tries to control everything. Unless we put it beyond change or entrench it, which is one of the many issues that I raised in the debates on the Scotland Bill, it will inevitably get sucked back to the centre. The gravitational pull of one Government or another to control will be so strong that unless we are clear about entrenching it—and there are lots of way to do that—we will find that the power that we would like to give will inevitably go back to the centre. That is why Labour’s posture going into the 2015 election was not adequate. Suggestions of beefing up the amount of money that the centre gives to the localities and creating super local enterprise partnerships rather than genuinely devolving power to England meant that people felt that we were not differentiated from other parties, and we paid a very dear price for that.
	If we are not clear about what we stand for in 2020 and beyond and if we do not have a vision, then those who do—even if it is a vision with which I do not necessarily agree—will seize our territory in England as certainly they have done in Scotland. It is a lesson for all of us. Essentially, to EVEL I wish to add DEVIL—devolved English voices in local government. Let us have more DEVIL about our debates and a little less EVEL, because then we will have all four nations of the Union being able to master their own fate—not in a way that is decided by Whitehall. We do not want Whitehall saying, “You have got to do it this way; otherwise we won’t let you.” No, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland need organically to grow how they wish to devolve and exercise power. There is that most beautiful concept described by the ugly word, “subsidiarity”—doing these things at the most appropriate level. Ultimately, there must be a federal answer, which will also lead to federal
	parties within the United Kingdom. That is my hope and my aim. Indeed, along with other colleagues in my party, I have written to the four leadership challengers to ask their views on that, so that we can learn the lessons and have devolution in England.
	My last point is more specific, and relates to the fact that I am a Member of Parliament for the constituency that sends the fewest number of young people to university in the United Kingdom. We all have great records that we wish to boast about; this is one that I bear as a cross and think about every single working day of my life. The young people in my constituency deserve as much of a chance as anyone else, but, because of the demography, that is rather difficult to achieve. We can do stuff about that.

Siobhain McDonagh: On that point, the whole House knows the wonderful work that my hon. Friend has done on early intervention. Does he agree that the biggest thing that we can do to help more young people from his constituency, and other disadvantaged young people, is to concentrate on the early years and early intervention?

Graham Allen: I am trying to be brief, because I wish to retain my place in the pecking order of being called early, so I am keen not to go into a topic that is very dear to my heart. Obviously, the idea of helping every baby, child and young person grow up with social and emotional capability is the key to everything—to relationship building, getting a decent job, and avoiding drink, drug abuse and all the rest that comes with that. My hon. Friend is very generous in her comments about a matter that is dear to my heart.
	When young people get to the point of thinking of going to university, particularly when that is not in the culture and tradition of their area, they need a bit of a hand. I have to say openly in this Chamber that having gone to work after school, I would not have gone to college and then to university had there not been a full grant to get me there, and many other people can say that. I am one of those who benefited from that system. Over recent years there has been a fantastic effort by people, especially headteachers, in my area, my city and my locality, Nottingham North. Although Nottingham North is way off the pace—an outlier from all the other areas—we have closed the gap massively, but still the rate of young people going to university, instead of being one in three, which is the average throughout the United Kingdom, is one in eight in my constituency.
	I finish with one final point related to that, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your generosity. Just last week, those who have worked night and day—the headteachers, the teachers, the parents and those young people who are in a minority in trying to get to university—received a devastating blow in the Budget, which said that low income families who get a grant to help those young people take that first step on the higher and further education ladder will no longer get it. As my area is quite a low income area, 93% of families in my constituency, according to the last figure, can get a full or partial grant.
	That was ended by the Chancellor last week. I am sure it looked okay when he was going through the list of things that might save a little bit of money here and a little bit there, but it is a devastating blow to the motivation, the drive and the aspiration that the Government talk
	about so much. I will raise this issue again in full if I secure an Adjournment debate. I will not take the time of the House to go through it all now, but I hope very much that, amid all the billions and billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money at his disposal, the Chancellor will allow people in my constituency who, perhaps as in my case, will not be able to go to university without that small help.
	It is no good replacing the grant with a loan when dealing with families who regard the current sum of £45,000 as a mountain to repay. If the figure goes up to £55,000 or £60,000, it will not be in their compass even to consider helping their young daughter or their young son go to university. I ask the Chancellor to think again, and I ask colleagues across the House to support any move that we can bring forward to restore the grant to low income families, so that people who are capable of going to university are not prevented from doing so by a lack of funding.

David Amess: Before the House rises for the summer recess, there a number of issues that I wish to raise and I will rattle through them as quickly as possible, so my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House, who is making her debut responding to the debate, need not panic if she cannot get the answers to everything.
	Terrorism is a great issue for each and every one of us to face. There are no easy solutions, but it is not helpful to keep calling the dreadful people who were responsible for the attacks in Tunisia a state or Islamic. Let us call them Daesh.
	I am appalled that we have spent a huge amount of money on the Chilcot report and waited a huge amount of time for it to be published. The gentleman is paid £799 per day for his work on that. I want the report published as soon as possible because, as someone who voted for us getting involved in the war in Iraq, I want to know whether I was misled. The Independent will shortly publish an article which will highlight my concerns on that issue.
	I am honoured to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on the Philippines. We are celebrating 70 years since the establishment of diplomatic relations between our two countries. I will be attending a conference in London later this year. It is wonderful how that country has picked itself up following the devastation caused by the tsunami.
	We have heard a lot about Iran. I shall not bore the House with my views on that, but recently, with a number of colleagues, I attended a conference in Paris. Those who attended it feel increasingly frustrated that the PMOI—the People’s Mojahedin of Iraq—is still, disgracefully, a proscribed organisation. That is absolutely ridiculous, and Mrs Maryam Rajavi is still not allowed to visit this country. That is crazy.
	Every colleague says, “David, it’s wonderful to fly from Southend airport.” Some of my constituents experience challenges if their property is under the flight path of the aeroplanes. Owing to the formula for recompense for noise pollution, a constituent has found that he is unable to claim for 50% of the cost of insulation, despite the fact that his own readings show noise levels of 88 decibels or higher. That is much more than the statutory limits of 63 to 69 decibels. The legislation on that needs to be looked at.
	On grammar school funding, we have four grammar schools in my constituency—Westcliff high school for boys, Westcliff high school for girls, Southend high school for boys and Southend high school for girls. The funding for grammar schools is not fair. It is done on the basis of funding per pupil, rather than per qualification, which has led to great difficulties in running our grammar schools. I hope that colleagues who have grammar schools in their constituency will make sure that we get fair funding for our schools.

Stephen Phillips: We have great grammar schools in Lincolnshire as well. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the things the Government need to do is remove the ban imposed by the Labour Government on new grammar schools opening and on existing grammar schools supporting the opening of new capacity where it is required within their own county?

David Amess: I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend. As a boy supposedly born into poverty, grammar school gave me the opportunity to make the most of my life. It was a great shame that another party decided that we should not continue to support grammar schools.
	On mental health, there are tremendous funding challenges and I am totally dissatisfied with mental health services in my area, so I am glad that the Care Quality Commission is carrying out an inspection. I hope that while CQC is doing so, the people running our services are not going to cook the books.
	I was delighted that the Conservative party manifesto said that my party would do something about banning wild animals in circuses. That was wonderful news. When is it going to happen?
	On public sector pay, I am sick to death of senior management being paid ridiculous salaries. I was appalled to discover, for instance, that my local hospital paid £343,000 for three people to walk around the hospital for three months asking people what was wrong with the hospital. Absolutely ridiculous! Given that my hospital originally had a £7.8 million deficit and now has a deficit of £9.8 million, it is not acceptable for money to be squandered in that way.
	I have the highest regard for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I will stand shoulder to shoulder with him in what he is trying to do about the BBC. I read the letter that was signed by a number of people who work for the BBC—absolute icons, but they have a vested interest in that they tend to be higher earners. It is right that this House makes sure that senior management in the BBC does not continue to be paid the ridiculous salaries that they currently receive.
	On national health service agency staff, before I became an MP I owned an employment agency, so I am not against the amount of money that employment agencies make from placing staff, but the amount of money spent on agency staff in our hospitals is ridiculous. As someone who served on the Health Committee for 10 years, where we had many inquiries, I think it is crazy that do not now have the number of permanent staff that we need.
	On 9 September Her Majesty the Queen will become the longest reigning monarch ever, which we should all celebrate. I know that she does not want a fuss, but I hope that when we return in September this House will allow half an hour or an hour for us to pay our tributes.
	Southend-on-Sea will be the alternative city of culture in 2017. We have a wonderful museum. I am very keen that we should have a marina. I congratulate Southend United on being promoted to league 1. Southend deserves to become a city, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House will pass that message on.
	All Members of Parliament are subject to lobbying; some good and some bad. I was delighted to be lobbied recently by Results UK, which told me that our country is by far one of the most generous donors of international aid, ensuring that valuable taxpayers’ money is spent in places that truly need support. We should be proud of the money that has gone to help people in Kenya, for example.
	The Optical Confederation is encouraging opticians to move outside hospitals, which can lead to tremendous savings in the work they do. I hope that colleagues will get involved in that.
	I was pleased recently to meet the chief executive of Essex Community Fund. The funds are built up by philanthropic people who are unsure about whom they should donate their money to. Rather than leaving it to cats and dogs homes—there is nothing wrong with that, of course—they can leave it to Essex Community Fund, which will be delighted to receive it.
	I am looking forward to attending a night shift with St Mungo’s Broadway, a charity in my constituency, although I do not think that I will be sleeping overnight on the pavement. As a party for one nation—I know that is controversial, but I think we are a one nation party—we must do all we can to show our concern for those who have fallen on hard times and to help them get back on their feet.
	The National Deaf Children’s Society is a wonderful organisation. I have 104 deaf children living in my constituency, so I was interested to hear the organisation’s ideas for allocating Ofsted inspectors who have experience of the needs of deaf children. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Education should evaluate whether that proposal should be taken forward.
	I recently had the privilege of meeting Lady Cobham, the chairman of VisitEngland, which used to be called the English Tourism Council. I understand that the money for tourism in Scotland is quite good, but apparently in England we are a little short of money to spend on that organisation. It is crazy that 39% of tourists come to London but only 16% go elsewhere in the UK. We should redress that balance, including by encouraging people to visit the wonderful country of Scotland.
	Many countries across Europe have invested in a universal vaccine for hepatitis B, and I wonder whether the Government should consider doing the same here.
	I very much support the endeavours of the Thames Estuary Partnership, because the Thames is the jewel in the crown, given everything that happens on the river.
	Roche has brought to my attention its concerns about how quickly the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommends medicines to be made available
	on the NHS. We all know that the pharmaceutical companies complain about NICE delaying matters, but I do think that it could speed things up a little.
	The final issue I want to mention is a depressing one: funerals. I am a member of the all-party group on funerals and bereavement, which has existed for over a decade. As we all know, two things that are absolutely certain in life is that we are born and that we die. They are very important events. The all-party group has undertaken an inquiry into delays between death and burial or cremation, following concerns raised by our late colleague Paul Goggins. The group hopes to publish its report shortly. On funeral poverty, the social fund provides vital support to the poorest in our communities seeking to hold a decent funeral for their loved ones. However, the cap on “other funeral expenses” from the social fund has remained at £700 since 2003, which is absolutely ridiculous, because all the costs have risen.
	I end my remarks by wishing Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and the officers and staff of the House a very happy summer. For my own part, at the end of this debate I shall be dressing up in armour, getting on my horse and preparing for my investiture at Windsor castle tomorrow.

Madeleine Moon: Today we have an opportunity hopefully to bring some closure on issues that have been with us over the Parliament. It was announced during business questions that the Backbench Business Committee is about to restart. I hope that Members will take the opportunity when leaving the Chamber today to go down to Dining Room A, where, because of my interest in Parkinson’s, motor neurone and kidney disease, I have brought in a lobby group to talk about bladder and bowel problems, particularly continence issues. I would welcome Members going there to find out how prevalent this is in all our constituencies. Hopefully they will support my application for a Back-Bench business debate on an important issue that affects all our constituents.
	Today, having waited since July 2014, I received a response from the Home Office about an application from my excellent Bridgend college. In July 2014 it applied for a tier 4 general sponsor licence to allow it to take overseas students. It was promised that the application would be dealt with by October 2014. I have since been writing letters and asking parliamentary questions, but answers have come there none, until today. Today’s letter told me that I would have an update in two weeks. I do not want an update in two weeks; I want a decision.
	Can we at least move things forward? We have heard a lot about the vital role that universities have played in bringing people to this place. I have an awful lot of young people in my constituency for whom further education colleges are the gateway to a change in their life and opportunities, and many people decide later in life that they want to extend their capabilities and skills. Granting the licence to Bridgend college would allow it to move into a different league of operation. I hope that the Home Office will give me a decision in two weeks, not an update.
	In January 2015 I secured a Back-Bench business debate on open-cast mining—I know that you have a great in interest in this, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you oversaw the Backbench Business Committee’s decision
	to allow the debate. We talked about the great crisis we have across the United Kingdom with orphaned open-cast mines, where private companies have ripped up the landscape, made huge profits and then disappeared, leaving sites desperate for finance—often many millions of pounds are needed to restore them. The companies make themselves bankrupt and then disappear.
	In that debate I asked for a meeting with the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), then a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. He said that he would meet me. I repeated the request in a Welsh affairs debate in March, during which I talked about the problems at the open-cast mine at Parc Slip in Cynfigg hill. I finally met the Minister on 18 March and was promised that during the recess work would be undertaken by the Department to look at how we can fund the restoration of such sites. I was also told that companies making themselves bankrupt did not mean that they did not have to face up to their financial responsibilities.
	When I returned to the House after the general election, I started emailing the right hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who had taken over as Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise. I had meetings with her and was assured that something would move forward quickly. Then I received a note out of the blue informing me that responsibility for the matter had moved to the Department of Energy and Climate Chance. I again started to ask for meetings. Today I received a promise that I will have a meeting on 3 September.
	For the people of Cynfigg hill, and for the people of Cefn Cribwr in the Ogmore constituency and the people of the Aberavon constituency, this issue cannot keep being dragged out. We have a mile and a half-long scar on the countryside of south Wales, with a huge open-cast mine, and the company that owns it, Celtic Energy, has walked away from its responsibilities. It is a large void with severely steep sides that fills up with water. At the moment the water level is low, but that makes it even more dangerous because children still see it as somewhere fun to go and swim. Motorcyclists still see it as somewhere fun to drive their bikes. People have even said, “Ooh, wouldn’t it be great to have a boating lake there?” I am fearful that someone will decide to take an inflatable boat into that void. It is highly dangerous—deep and steep-sided. There is a fear of one of the walls collapsing and the water cascading into my community of Cynffig Hill. The water quality is highly suspect, and we need to tackle this.
	Mining was started at Parc Slip in 1985 under British Coal, and privatised under the Coal Industry Act 1994. Celtic Energy bought 13 sites in Wales, including Parc Slip. When mining finished in 2008, the Serious Fraud Office attempted to prosecute Celtic Energy, the company that had responsibility for Parc Slip. Further planning permission to continue mining had been denied, and it was time for Celtic Energy to fulfil its obligation to restore the site. At the Serious Fraud Office hearing, Mr Justice Hickinbottom described how at this time some of Celtic Energy’s directors and executives came up with a plan called “the big picture” arranging for the creation of a series of companies and parent companies in the British Virgin Islands. The ultimate owners and financial beneficiaries of these companies were the men themselves. It was arranged to sell to one of them, Oak Regeneration, the land and the attached responsibilities for restoration.
	After the sale, many of the provisions for restoration that Celtic Energy had held in accounts—about £135 million —were released by the auditors. Six members involved in planning the transaction were awarded large bonuses. The sale to Oak Regeneration must have seemed strange to the auditors and non-executive members of Celtic Energy’s board. A fee of £10,000 was paid for legal advice from Stephen Davies, QC, who advised that it would not be a successful way of transferring the restoration responsibilities to another company. After another fee of £250,000 for further advice from Mr Davies, it was said that the sale would in fact be a successful way of transferring restoration responsibilities. The fund was reduced to £67 million, and Celtic Energy now claims that the money does not even exist. It says that the figures are “provisional” for liabilities on the balance sheet and do not represent any assets in any form, cash or otherwise. During the course of the Serious Fraud Office investigation, it was not clear whether the transactions were effective.
	We need Government advice as to whether Celtic Energy remains responsible. One of the problems is that it claims that when it bought the land for £100 million, that gave it no responsibility for restoration. We were told that the question had been answered. The Minister told me at the meeting in March that responsibility for restoration still rested with Celtic Energy and was not removed by the bond-free period.
	The people of Cynffig Hill deserve to know what is going on. The Serious Fraud Office case failed purely on a point of law; it had nothing to do with the case. Mr Justice Hickinbottom said that
	“conduct that some may regard as morally reprehensible is not open to be set aside, let alone be the possible subject of criminal sanctions, because Parliament has determined that those sanctions should not apply in those circumstances”.
	It was a nit-picking point of law that prevented the people of my constituency and the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) from having justice. We need a decision.
	Unfortunately, when my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon tabled a question asking what decision would be made, the answer was that the matter would not be within the purview of the Department of Energy and Climate Change. I am looking forward to the meeting in September. However, I need to be sure about this. I need to be able to go to my constituents and say that responsibilities rest with this Government in helping to make sure that the site is restored and justice is finally done, and that a company cannot use dubious legal and accounting practices to hide money and to take it away from restoration, while avoiding meeting its responsibilities for that restoration. This is a blot on the landscape that is dangerous to children and to people who, sadly, see it as a recreational opportunity but not as the dangerous site that it is.

Bob Blackman: It is an honour to follow the thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on behalf of her constituents. I cannot match the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) in rattling through so many issues in such a short space of time, but I will do my best. I want to use this opportunity to
	raise a number of unfinished business items that the Government need to pick up, and possibly some local issues if time permits.
	The first issue is compensation for victims of the Equitable Life scandal. I am delighted that the Government have managed to pay out, overall, more than £1 billion to the 900,000 policyholders who are victims of this scam. However, the fight is not yet complete. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has announced the closure of the compensation scheme at the end of this year to new applications for compensation. I am delighted that the Treasury has agreed to open up applications to ensure that the people—136,000, we believe—who have not yet registered a claim on the account can do so, and that we will use national insurance numbers and all means to trace those individuals so that they can register that claim.
	Of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced further compensation for the people who have not yet received full compensation, but that is limited to the individuals who were on pension credit. On the Government figures alone for what has been agreed, £2.8 billion is still owed to nearly 1 million policyholders who have not received their full compensation. I can assure the House that the all-party group on Equitable Life policyholders, which I am privileged to co-chair—we have over 200 members—will continue the work until such time as all those policyholders receive full and fair compensation.
	The second issue that I want to discuss arose in the previous Parliament. Tacked on to a piece of legislation in the other place was a move to enact highly divisive caste discrimination legislation without proper consultation with the Hindu community. It has caused immense concern within that community. Despite the fact that it was voted down by this House and returned to the other place, the other place insisted on its clauses and sent it back. Then, unfortunately, our coalition partners gave way on the issue instead of removing it from legislation. Now that we have a Conservative-only Government, we clearly need to remove that divisive legislation from the statute book completely.
	In general, we would all want to ensure that any form of discrimination is outlawed, but as soon as legislation is introduced in the sensitive area of caste, one of the problems is that it then has to be monitored. I can imagine the scenario were this legislation to be enacted, with children returning home to their parents and asking, “Mummy, Daddy, what caste are we? My teacher has asked me to find out what caste we are so that we are not discriminated against.” Caste, particularly in the Hindu community, is in many cases a thing of the past, given intermarriage and so on, so it is wrong to create a problem in relation to something that is slowly desisting. One step the Government should take is to introduce legislation to remove that from the statute book for good and all.
	The third area is one of my great passions—stopping people smoking and preventing young people from starting to smoke. I have just had the honour of being elected to the chairmanship of the all-party group on smoking and health. The coalition Government gave local authorities substantial funds for public health, which was due to be ring-fenced, to encourage people to
	give up smoking and to prevent people from starting to smoke, as well as for connected purposes. My particular concern is that the funds are not being used for their intended purpose, and that, as a result, we are not getting the action we need to ensure people are assisted to make the health decision to give up smoking.
	In my view, whether to start smoking is one of the key decisions that a young person makes in life. If they start smoking, they quickly become addicted, and the big tobacco companies have them for life. The fact is that tobacco and cigarettes are the one product sold world wide which, if you use it as it is intended to be used, will kill you. The reality is that we must encourage people not to smoke. We need to ensure that local authorities use this opportunity to make sure that smoking becomes a thing of the past. I still believe that smoking is a matter of free will, so I do not want it to be banned completely. I do, however, want to make sure that we do not encourage anyone to smoke in the first place.
	The next area I want to raise is my great disappointment that Chatham House has decided to invite Bako Sahakyan to speak. No country, not even Armenia, recognises the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. That area is illegally occupied by Armenia, which has resulted in more than 1 million people being displaced from their homes to refugee camps. I do not think it is right that a body should bring into this country, and give a platform to, someone who is perpetuating injustice to that community. There have been United Nations resolutions galore about that, yet none has been implemented. It is the constant complaint of people from Azerbaijan that while resolutions are agreed at the United Nations and immediate action follows, in their case they have been waiting more than 30 years for justice.
	On a lighter note, I await the result of the judicial review of the application of VAT to bridge clubs. When that result is announced, I hope that the Government will ensure that mind sports, such as bridge and chess, are properly funded by Sport England so that young people get the opportunity to learn not only the physical aspects of competitive sports, but the mental ones. I hope there will be the opportunity for such sports to be promoted in this place and elsewhere—in schools and beyond—so that clubs can operate under and get grants from Sport England to ensure that the mind as well as the body is trained to perfection.
	I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers and all the staff of this place a very happy recess. I shall be running a work experience programme in my constituency so that a number of young people can learn about the joys of being involved in politics and learn something about the hard work that we all put in.

Valerie Vaz: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). This is my first opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) on her appointment as Deputy Leader of the House of Commons. I saw her on television last night and she is in the Chamber again today, but her marathon stint is much appreciated.
	The issues I want to raise in this summer Adjournment debate centre on transport and roads. The three main issues affecting the lives of my constituents are the
	roadworks on the M6, the state of our roads and the campaign that I want to launch for a 20 mph zone around schools in Walsall South.
	Transport, and particularly local transport, are key to people being able to get about in their daily lives. Whether goods need to be transported or people need to get to work or to their leisure activities, transport links such as cars, buses, trams and trains are vital. At the moment, however, my poor constituents in Walsall South are spending an inordinate amount of time in traffic jams, which affects not only their wellbeing and quality of life, but their productivity. In 2013, productivity in the west midlands fell to 11.8% behind the national average.
	As Members will remember, just before the election we all received a letter from the Department for Transport stating that the Highways Agency would be renamed Highways England. Even though it is still an arm’s length body, it is wholly owned by the Government, with the Secretary of State as the sole shareholder. I am finding it difficult to get a response from the Secretary of State and Highways England, which was responsible for closing the slip road at junction 9 on the M6. The slip road enabled local traffic to bypass the motorway, but my constituents and others who come to the west midlands now have to follow a four-mile diversion to junction 7, and my constituents have said that it takes them an hour to do what is effectively a two-mile journey.
	I raised that matter in a question to the Leader of the House almost two weeks ago, and I was informed that I would get an answer. My letter to the Secretary of State, copied to Highways England, was sent on 16 June. Not only have I not received an answer, but I have not actually seen anyone working on the slip road. Several times, when I have been past on returning to my constituency, I have seen absolutely no one working on it and no one working under it. That sounds a bit like “We’re Going on a Bear Hunt”. It is a flyover, so someone could be working under it.
	Worse still, a press release dated 20 May said that the slip road was due to open on 13 November, but the bulletin on the Highways England website said on 15 June that it would open on 30 July. There is not only confusion in Highways England, but confusion all round. We know that the work on the motorway needs to be done, but it is not clear why the slip road needs to be closed. I would appreciate a response on that, because the slip road seems to be as silent as those from whom I should be getting a response.
	The closure of the slip road not only affects what is happening on the motorway, but has led to congestion on local roads. Since the roadworks began, there has been congestion past junction 10, and that has led to congestion on the black country route from Wolverhampton to the M6 at junction 10. Wolverhampton Road West is one of the roads affected. It runs parallel to the black country route, and because of the congestion there, people are using that road instead. Cracks are appearing in the tarmac and there are now potholes. One evening, one of my constituents who lives on Wolverhampton Road West counted 125 lorries going down it, which is totally inappropriate for that road.
	Bescot Crescent is also affected, with potholes, and cracks to the road surface and to the fairly old speed humps. It is one of the main roads leading to Walsall
	Football Club and to local businesses. Members will be interested to know that the council’s response to me states that many people and councillors have raised the issue. The letter said that the road could be
	“argued to be in need of resurfacing”
	but bizarrely it then stated that the road’s condition is not sufficiently severe to warrant inclusion in the 2015-16 programme. I am concerned because when I mentioned the resurfacing of Oxford Street—the one in Walsall South, not London—nothing was done until just before the election, and then somebody else took the credit.
	My biggest difficulty with local roads is Walstead Road, where a safety scheme has been put in place. Residents told me that a short consultation was held over the summer, but because there were no responses, that counted in favour of the proposals as if there had been a positive response. Many other councils do not do that. What might the residents of Walstead Road now have to put up with – speed humps, traffic islands, or speed humps near traffic islands at various random places on the road such as right in front of people’s drives so that they cannot reverse out? Residents were not consulted on a solution, but I held two meetings and people came up with some good solutions, two of which—sequencing of traffic lights and signage at Birmingham Road to stop people going down Walstead Road—have been taken up by the council.
	The alternatives to speed humps were not even considered, even though residents provided the council with solutions. We know that speed humps cause a lot of noise, as well as damage to cars. When I have travelled down that road it has been painful—I had to clutch my neck, so there are personal injuries issues as well. The speed humps seem rather large, and I have arranged for them to be measured. They come right up to the limit of 100 mm, but because of the heat—or for some other reason—they seem to be concaving, so they are clearly higher than the maximum height allowed.
	Drivers will not go down Walstead Road, so they now use Delves Crescent and West Bromwich Road. Constituents from both those roads have contacted me to speak about the effect of the humps on Walstead Road and the lack of proper traffic calming measures. Walstead Road could do with a watchman sign such as the kind that flashes up speeds and number plates. That seems to work for Sutton Road, which has large detached houses, so I do not see why it cannot work on Walstead Road.
	My third point is about the 20 mph speed limit, which was first mentioned by the parents of pupils at Bentley West primary school. Monmouth Road is quite narrow and cars speed down it—it is like the straight at Silverstone. One resident said that they can hear motorbikes speeding round, and they are just waiting for the thump. The school is on the corner of the road and there is a park nearby where people walk their dogs. There are a lot of pedestrians in that area.
	Let me give the House an interesting statistic: pedestrians hit by a car at 20 mph have a 1.5% fatality risk, compared with an 8% fatality risk for those hit by a car at 30 mph. Those figures are from a report published in June by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents.
	In Hull, there is widespread use of 20 mph zones in residential areas, and approximately 25% of its roads make up 100 separate zones. That is the largest number
	of 20 mph zones of any local authority in the UK. Interestingly, between 1994 and 2001, personal injury accidents in the 20 mph zones in Hull dropped by 56%, and fatalities by 90%. We can see that it works. Bristol city council is about to implement a blanket 20 mph speed limit that will apply everywhere apart from major roads. The pilot for the scheme was successful in reducing traffic speeds by using only 20 mph signs without additional traffic calming measures. In the pilot area, average speeds dropped to below 23 mph. The London borough of Islington has had a blanket 20 mph speed limit on all roads apart from those managed by Transport for London since 2012.
	Implementing a 20 mph zone does not cost money. It is merely a traffic regulation order passed by the local authority after a consultation, but it saves lives. Walsall metropolitan borough council will be receiving more than £12 million for the maintenance and repair of local roads over the next five years. I flag up the fact that roads in my constituency also need resurfacing, and I hope the council will listen. I have put in a freedom of information request to ask how much has been spent in Walsall South because I travel around the area and see that some constituencies have better roads than there are in Walsall South—I should not have had to put in that FOI request, but I hope nevertheless that some of that money comes our way. I also ask the Transport Secretary and Highways England to respond to my correspondence and give reasons for why that slip road remains closed.
	It is amazing: we have new horizons and can see the face of Pluto, but we cannot come up with a creative solution—even though my constituents have come up with some sort of a solution—to find alternatives for the speed humps. Pluto leads me neatly to Professor Brian Cox, because I was present at the opening of the education centre. That amazing centre will make a huge difference to our constituents and children from our schools. Professor Cox opened the centre, which is a tribute to Mr Speaker and the parliamentary education service. Children across the UK will be able to see how Parliament works, and what a difference we will make and the seat of democracy will make to their lives.

Madeleine Moon: When I was in Australia, I discovered that the Australian Government pay for every child to travel across Australia to go to the Parliament so that they can experience how democracy works in their country. Would it not be wonderful if train companies in Britain could do the same, because the cost of transporting children from poorer areas such as my constituency mean that many never get here?

Valerie Vaz: There is a travel subsidy, but because it is over-subscribed, I think it is for those outside the M25. It would be nice if that was extended to everyone, but many schools have benefited from that travel subsidy.
	Finally, I thank the House staff, the Library, the education service and everyone else, and I wish them a very happy recess.

Seema Kennedy: It is somewhat daunting to follow experienced colleagues such as my hon. Friends the Members for Southend West (Sir David
	Amess) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), but I shall do my best. The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mentioned the M6, and as someone who uses the motorway—even though it has been improved with the toll road—I know that travelling with three children often results in tears of anger and frustration, and that is just from me. I wish the hon. Lady well in her efforts.
	As a new Member I shall begin by thanking everyone in the House staff, the Speaker’s office and the Doorkeepers for the warm welcome that they gave us. I particularly thank my buddy, Charlotte Blythin, who helped me in the first fortnight. The way that the induction programme was run gives the lie to the idea that this is an archaic workplace. In fact, compared with my experience at a City law firm, this place is positively 22nd century!
	Right hon. and hon. Members may be aware that the statistics in England for one-year survival rates for cancer are lower than those of our European neighbours, largely because of late diagnosis. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), as chair of the all-party group on cancer, for his work on this issue. Diagnosis and prognosis for breast cancer is so much better than it was 20 or 30 years ago, but there are still about 12,000 of our fellow countrymen—mainly women, but some men—who die of breast cancer every year. It was the case in my constituency of a father and a daughter who were diagnosed with breast cancer at the same time and felt very badly let down by Southport hospital, which closed its breast cancer unit without a proper consultation, that has spurred me on to become a breast cancer ambassador for Breast Cancer Now.
	I am sure all hon. Members will have had in their inboxes an invitation from Breast Cancer Now to become an ambassador. Breast Cancer Now is the merger of Breast Cancer Campaign and Breakthrough Breast Cancer. Its aim is to eliminate the disease by 2050. I think about 178 right hon. and hon. Members have become ambassadors, but I urge even more to do so, particularly hon. Gentlemen. Men are not just affected as husbands, fathers and sons when their wives, girlfriends and daughters get breast cancer. As the case in my constituency shows, men are also victims of the disease. We need to carry on the efforts of this campaign and eliminate it by 2050.
	South Ribble is a wonderful place to live and work, but in one respect our statistics are slightly worse than the national average: the number of older people who live alone. Social isolation is the objective measure of how many contacts a person has, and loneliness is how an individual feels. They can both exacerbate a plethora of health problems, including hypertension, sleep problems and, in particular in the society we live in today, dementia. People are becoming more conscious of this issue, and national and local government are beginning to take measures to deal with it. I draw the attention of right hon. and hon. Members to the “Hidden Citizens” report from the Campaign to End Loneliness. I am sure many colleagues will have heard, particularly when talking to councillors and local groups in their constituencies, how difficult it is to identify very isolated older people, who are literally hidden behind doors. I am sure all of us, in March and April in particular, found those people on the doorstep. They were the ones who were really keen to carry on speaking to us, because they are so isolated and perhaps have only one or two conversations in a fortnight.
	The report considers this vast problem and highlights factors intrinsic to loneliness, including gender, sexuality, ethnicity and temperament. It is on extrinsic factors that we in this place can make a difference. How do we build our towns? How do we plan our healthcare? How do we think about travel in the future? I would be very interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Deputy Leader of the House has to say on what the Government are doing in this area.
	Finally, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on being part of the team that secured the nuclear deal with Iran. Right hon. and hon. Members may know that, as the first British Iranian in this place, I take a particular interest in that country. I know that on all sides of the House there are worries about what will happen in the future, but my right hon. Friend laboured for many years, with his P5+1 colleagues, and I hope very sincerely that this is the beginning of a new era of reconciliation and contact between our two peoples. As we saw on the streets of Tehran, the vast majority of Iranians—including many in the Iranian Parliament and Government—are open to the world. They want to turn their faces to the world and have a new era of peace. It is in Britain’s interests, in terms of security and trade, that we engage with Iran going forward. Let us hope the deal does not unravel over the recess and that when we meet again progress will have been made on lifting the sanctions.

Siobhain McDonagh: It is a pleasure to follow the new hon. Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy), whose performance was really assured. I have been in this place quite a long time and I am slightly worried that I will not be quite so assured, but I do wish to raise an issue of great importance to me and, I believe, to Members on both sides of the House—that of social mobility in the UK. By that, I mean the ability of children, wherever they are born, whoever they are born to, to get on in life and have access to the opportunities, the education and the careers that they would wish to have, regardless of their background.
	I acknowledge that we live in an amazing city that has brought hope and opportunity to generations of people from all over the world. That was never brought home more to me than when watching my late, wonderful father lean over the balcony in the House of Lords to see my sister ennobled.
	My dad was one of 14. He was brought up in two rooms in a bog in the middle of the west of Ireland—a beautiful and wonderful place, but a place that could not give him work, could not allow him to feed himself or to feed his family. So he came to London in 1947, like a generation of others—no different, no more exceptional—and he built our roads, and he built our offices. He never asked for anything but the opportunity to work. He met a wonderful woman, my mother, who in ’47 came to be in that first generation of nurses. Together they had two daughters, not exceptional in themselves—and I am by far the less exceptional of the two—who have had the opportunity and the honour to become the Member for Mitcham and Morden, and to become a Member in another place. A wonderful opportunity, a wonderful city and a wonderful country.
	I had parents who bestowed on me the complete and unwavering desire to work hard, believing that nothing came but from work for those of us who were born to
	nothing—believing that work enables you to support yourself and your family, but it is also a moral duty to help your community. Also, as we now know, work helps us stay healthy. But what worries me is that for the generations that come after me—particularly, I am sad to say, the white working-class kids in my constituency—the doors that were open to me are closing.
	By most measures, the UK falls behind other countries on social mobility. Alan Milburn’s recent report on the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission found that we are trailing behind most developed nations, and there appears to be a stronger relationship between parental background and children’s future income in Britain than in any other country in Europe. The report also found that top jobs in Britain across a range of sectors go overwhelmingly to those educated in the private sector: 71% of senior judges, 62% of senior armed forces officers, 55% of permanent secretaries and 50% of Members of the House of Lords all attended independent schools.
	I do not have with me the figures showing what those percentages are in the media, but I know that they are even more concentrated on groups of more privileged people. That is why I am delighted that my great friend Michael Foster—who was the Labour candidate in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle—after seeing the riots on TV a few years ago, became aware of how few black and Asian reporters there were on our TV screens and set up Creative Access, a charity to find work experience and internships for black and Asian young people that paid £16,000 a year. Eighty per cent. of the hundreds of black and Asian young people that he has got into work are now in permanent jobs in the media. Michael is now extending that, understanding how low is the representation of white working-class young people in our media, and he is piloting projects in our sixth forms in London, including, thankfully, in my constituency, from next year.
	Although these great initiatives happen, we are lagging so far behind. At times when professions desperately need to reach out to people from different backgrounds and be more representative in order to be most effective, the doors are being closed. Take the example of the police force. It took me weeks and months in the previous Session of Parliament to make hon. Members from all parties understand that currently, any young person wanting to apply to join the police force has to undertake a course, with private tutors, costing £1,000. That is the certificate in knowledge of policing. Being in a police force used to be an opportunity, in the main for working-class men, to get on, get a job and move up the ladder. Today the doors are being closed to those who want to become police officers. The bobby tax probably deprives us of great people who could make connections in their own communities to help policing and bring down crime.
	We also know about the number of employers who ask for work experience when assessing job applicants. Parents often tell me that their children want a job but cannot get on the job ladder without that experience. Too often they cannot get the work experience they need unless they have contacts and the money to work unpaid. On and on it goes, round and round in a circle.
	I started a work experience scheme in my constituency when I realised that more young people from outside my constituency than inside it were applying to work with me. I have had the great opportunity to get more
	than 60 local employers together and put together a booklet of opportunities, which I send to all my local young people. Only today, when I visited Benedict primary school, I met Safira Hassan, who told me that she had taken up one of the opportunities in that booklet and as a result is now working full time as a teaching assistant for challenging children. She hopes to go on to be a drama therapist. Helping individuals in that way is the real excitement of having this job.
	Some sectors are particularly restrictive in the number of obstacles that they put in front of those from less privileged backgrounds. Alan Milburn’s recent report found that just 7% of new medical students came from the bottom three socioeconomic groups, partly due to the difficulty that those without family connections have in accessing work experience in the sector. Many bright young people come to my advice surgery asking me to help, and I am grateful to Professor Field, the director of research at south-west London elective orthopaedic centre, who regularly gives me the opportunity to enable young people in my constituency to get work experience.
	We all know that the cuts to careers advice services in schools under the coalition Government further widened the gap between those who have the knowledge and contacts to get on and those from less privileged backgrounds who have great potential. The rapid expansion of unpaid internships is another factor restricting opportunities. The Sutton Trust has found that a third of graduate internships are unpaid, and that three-month internships in London in which expenses are provided cost about £3,000 to complete. We cannot allow it to be the case that only those who can afford to work unpaid end up being able to get their foot on the first rung of the ladder in many careers. What if a young person who might go on to discover a cure for cancer cannot afford to do an internship with a cancer research charity, or cannot get the work experience needed to apply to medical school?
	Much of a child’s opportunity is, of course, determined by the quality of their education at a young age. There has been discussion in recent years about the stark correlation between economic inequality and low educational achievement. Of course, there are huge challenges facing many disadvantaged groups of children, but the below-average achievement of white working-class children remains static. Last year, just 31% of white children on free school meals achieved five A* to C-grade GCSEs. I am extremely proud of the work that the last Labour Government did to close that gap, and I will for ever be grateful to Lord Harris of Peckham, a peer not of my political persuasion but one who has taken two of the most underperforming schools in my constituency and transformed them, particularly for young people on free school meals.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Siobhain McDonagh: I am really sorry, but I will not; I do not want to go on too long, because I know a number of Members are trying to get in.
	In 2009, only 28% of students at Harris Academy Morden—then Bishopsford school—achieved five A* to C grades including English and maths. By 2013, that had doubled to 57%. In 2007, only 28% of Harris Academy Merton students achieved five A* to C grades, but by 2013 that had nearly trebled to 75%. That means real chances and opportunities, and I do not understand why the Conservatives want to make schools that are already achieving become academies. We should concentrate on those schools that are underperforming, because they will have children from the most-excluded groups.
	I have so much to say, but I do not want to deny other hon. Members the right to contribute. We all as individual Members have a role to play in helping people get on the ladder, but Parliament and the Government have nothing less than a moral imperative.

Jake Berry: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Before I talk about some issues on behalf of my constituents in this Adjournment debate, I want to mention the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy). I think all the existing Members have been surprised by the fantastic quality of all the new Members on both sides of the House, and how quickly they have got to grips with this place.
	My hon. Friend made a particularly insightful speech about breast cancer. I remember the Christmas eve when my mother told me she had breast cancer, and how scared and worried I was. For the whole Christmas, all we really talked about was how we could lose her. I am delighted to say that she is now well and has enjoyed a long and happy life since that Christmas. It is such an important disease, and I am now proud to be a breast cancer ambassador. It was an excellent speech and the issue was well worth raising.
	In my constituency, rural businesses are succeeding, such as the Wellbeing Farm in Edgworth, but lack of broadband is a huge issue for such businesses, rural homes and towns. It stops many businesses flourishing as they should. Across Lancashire, 80% of homes and businesses are now connected to superfast broadband because of the work that the last Government did. Constituency figures are not available, but I am sure that the reach is not 80% in my constituency. That is not good enough, frankly, and I hope that the Government will continue to work with me, British Telecom and Openreach to ensure that we have a real plan to get all rural businesses and homes in Rossendale and Darwen connected to superfast broadband by 2020. In other areas where superfast broadband is not available, such as Lower Darwen and Whitworth, we are plagued by “not spots” that have no 3G or 4G available on mobile phones or tablets. That is a really big issue, and at business questions a few weeks ago I asked whether the Government would make a statement on what progress they intend to make in tackling “not spots”. There has to be more we can do in terms of encouraging mobile companies to share bandwidth and masts to ensure that across my constituency, and other rural areas, we provide mobile broadband at least, and superfast broadband as soon as possible.
	In our work as Members of Parliament, we get to do lots of visits, and I recently visited Blackburn hospital. It is just outside my constituency, but it serves people from both Rossendale and Darwen. The hospital has been put into special measures, but it has made huge progress. It was a real privilege for me, as a local Member of Parliament, to go and speak to occupational therapists, doctors, nurses and managers in that hospital and talk to them about the long journey they have been on.
	I want particularly to highlight a plan that the hospital has to put a GP surgery at the front of its accident and emergency department. It is an excellent idea, because it will mean that my constituents who go to Blackburn hospital’s A and E department with the worst injuries or illnesses can be seen quickly. Some people who go to the A and E department need to see a GP. They should not be there in the first place, but if they are there with an ailment that a GP can look at, they will be diverted to the hospital’s GP practice. That is an excellent initiative by Blackburn hospital, and I think it is worth drawing to the attention of other hon. Members. The special measures regime can bring new ideas and different thinking to hospitals, and it can improve them.
	I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made £8 billion available to the NHS in this Parliament to ensure that such great ideas, and our fantastic NHS staff, have the money they need to serve my constituents. On that £8 billion, it is hugely important that all MPs engage with their local GP surgeries, clinical commissioning groups and NHS Trust—for me, it is East Lancashire Hospitals—to ensure that we have a fantastic service for the people we represent, because making sure the NHS is there for my constituents is and always shall be my top priority.
	In my constituency we have some delays at the moment on the railway line between Darwen and Manchester. That has not caused too much disruption, but it is a great sign that the work we have been promised—to double the track between Manchester and Darwen—is now under way. We are going to move to a half-hourly service for trains all day, which will be a huge boost to people who live in Darwen but work in Manchester.
	We have also been promised some new trains for our lines. We have Pacers, which are no longer fit for purpose, and I hope and believe that as part of re-franchising the Northern Rail franchise the Pacers will be phased out. We have been promised some new trains with wi-fi. I hope that over the summer people who live in Darwen, who will suffer delays while that work goes on, will think it is worthwhile and that we have delivered on the promise of improved rail links.
	In Darwen we also have the A666. It is not the devil’s road, as some people have called it, or even the road to hell. It is a road that goes through the centre of the town of Darwen, and at the moment it is the scene of severe travel disruption, because Blackburn council has installed a new set of traffic lights. I hope that over the summer the council will listen to the literally thousands of my constituents who have signed an online petition asking it to turn off those lights. People are contacting me all the time, saying, “It is taking me over an hour to visit my family”, “get to work” or “drop my children at school.” We all support road improvements in our constituency, but the traffic lights scheme on the A666
	has not been and is not working. The local authority should never be afraid to step back, turn the lights off and think again.
	In Transport questions today, I mentioned a problem on Bacup road, which is being dug up for the third time in fewer than 18 months, causing severe disruption. I hope that over the summer people will not be too badly affected. Despite these transport improvement works and transport problems, I hope that Members from all parts of the House will not be put off visiting my constituency during the summer. In particular, they should go to the town of Bacup, where we have £2 million of Townscape Heritage Initiative investment in the town centre, restoring some of its 120 listed buildings.
	I was reminded, after I finished my advice surgery at the newly restored library in the centre of Bacup, of how much the town has come on by the opening of a new antiques shop called The Shabby Elephant. I must admit that I have been suffering from a fit of desire since I went to The Shabby Elephant, because it had a rather splendid Raleigh bicycle, with a leather seat, mudguards, chain guard and three gears. If people do not get there before me, I may go back and buy it this weekend, and try to get fit over the summer.
	In Rawtenstall town centre—again, really worth a visit—we have plans for a new bus station. I met the local authority this week and am delighted that it is thinking again about these plans. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reshape our town centre, but when we have fantastic historic mill towns we must make sure that any development reflects that heritage. The people of Rawtenstall need to be front and centre in terms of the design of, and the changes that need to take place to, the bus station plans before they go ahead. I am pleased that the council will do that over the summer, and the bus station work should start later this year.
	I want to finish with some good news, about HAPPI—not the Pharrell Williams song, which we may all be listening to as we get in our cars and go back to our constituencies for the recess, but a community group in Haslingden, which has worked tirelessly for the last couple of years to reopen Haslingden pool. I had some wonderful news this week, because the pool should be reopening. Unfortunately, for parents who live in the village of Helmshore, where I live with my wife, or who live in Haslingden, the pool will not be open for this summer holiday, but it will be for the next set of school holidays. It just shows what a fantastically driven and well organised community group can do. It is no small feat to take a pool that has been closed for 18 months, sort out the building’s refurbishment, persuade the council to hand over some money and get it reopened. I am absolutely delighted, and it will certainly get my recess started with a splash.

Jim Shannon: Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in this end-of-term debate.
	I wish first to put on the record my thanks to Mr Speaker and all the Deputy Speakers. As a Back Bencher with no thoughts of ever being anything else, it is good to have the opportunity, which they give us, to participate in debates and ask questions. I also wish to thank the staff of the House for their courtesy, kindness and
	assistance. We could not do our job without them. This is my second term in the House, and I have appreciated all their help over the past few years, as well as the guidance that the Speaker and Deputy Speakers provide.
	I want to bring before the House an issue of importance to me and my constituency. I did a quick headcount before I got up to speak: about half those Members present were elected back in 2005 or before, and about half are first-time Members. Some of those present, therefore, will have heard me talk about the importance of country sports, which is a subject of particular interest to me. Particularly in the light of the postponement of the debate on the Hunting Act 2004, it is important that I at least put down this marker. I feel I must raise this topic, and I hope that many will agree on the importance that country sports play in our society.
	Perhaps it is difficult to imagine the contribution of country sports when the subject is raised in this wonderful House, located, as it is, in the centre of the hustle and bustle of London. As we walk around this vast city, we are surrounded by busy suits hurrying to their next meeting, and the sheer noise of the cars and buses is often overwhelming—not to mention the often cramped and often pushy conditions of the rush-hour tubes. If Members will allow, I will transport them to my wonderful constituency of Strangford. I hope they will use their imagination so that we can focus on the importance of country sports.
	I need not remind Members how beautiful is my constituency, as those who live there or have visited it will know. I am sure that many others feel they know it already. For those who have not had the pleasure of visiting, however, let me say that we are fortunate to have a happy mix of towns, villages and countryside, all in one. Right on doorsteps of the towns, and often just a short drive or walk away, are loughs, rolling green fields and beautiful forests and parks. There is no better constituency for country sports. Those who know me will be aware that I am a country sports enthusiast, particularly when it comes to shooting.
	I suppose it is no shock to anyone here that someone from Northern Ireland should be interested in shooting, but I have to say it is legitimate, legalised shooting, and I have a licence to prove it. For me, shooting is a way to relax, although with present commitments, I cannot pursue it as much as I would like. Some Members will remember my maiden speech in June 2005, when I said that the ducks and the pheasants of my constituency would be relieved to have two or three days a week when they did not have to worry about me chasing them, because I would be in this House.
	Shooting and fishing contribute so much to society in terms of revenue, jobs and conservation. As a keen shooter, I find myself a dedicated conservationist. Back home on the family farm on the Ards peninsula, I am always thinking of new ways to conserve the natural habitat for animals and birds. I have planted on the farm some 3,000 trees, I have dug and excavated two duck ponds, and I always ensure the hedgerows are maintained and that land is set aside where wildlife and fauna can excel.
	I am not alone in carrying out such conservation work. Anyone who enjoys shooting or fishing tends to do the same, and it is really great for wildlife. It not only preserves natural habitats, but encourages new habitats:
	in recent years, I have seen the return to our farm and district of the yellow bunting, which has been missing for many years. That they are back in numerical strength is an indication of the good work being done on our and our neighbours’ farms.
	Birds of prey also abound, and I have no doubt that that is the result of good conservation work. Each year, I hold a few shoots on my land and on neighbours’ land, and it is proving to be a huge success, bringing together friends and relatives for a day of relaxation and good company—and hopefully a few birds at the end of the day for the purpose of the plate.
	Conservation must go hand in hand with shooting; we must get the right balance between them. That means people who want to conserve can do so, and people who want to shoot can do so. However, for me, it is not possible to have one without the other.
	In Strangford, we are inundated with places to fish and places to shoot. In fact, Northern Ireland is often described as one of the finest places in Europe to fish because all types of angler are catered for—whether it be coarse fishing, game fishing or sea fishing. My constituency has the largest coastline of all of the Northern Ireland constituencies, with seawater access. Not only that, as we are surrounded by various loughs and lakes that prove extremely popular with anglers. Just a couple of weeks ago, I attended a fly-fishing festival in Killyleagh in my constituency—and what a fantastic day it was! I was pleased to see so many people in attendance.
	I am always keen to get more children and young people involved in country sports because of the potential for real family occasions. Shooting was passed down to me, and I have passed down my love for that sport to my own sons and my granddaughter, Katie-Lee, a six-year-old. I believe we have another generation of shooters coming through, even at that young age. There are many shooting estates and syndicates at Rosemount and Greyabbey, at Dunleath estate in Ballywalter, Carrowdore castle, Mount Stewart estate in Greyabbey, the Rademon in Crossgar, the Demesne in Saintfield and also at Portavo and Donaghadee.

Bob Stewart: I thank my very hon. and good Friend for giving way. I know him so well and am sure that he or someone else will eat every single thing he shoots—so there is a good purpose in shooting.

Jim Shannon: If it is edible, yes, I would probably have a go at it. I cannot say that I eat everything I shoot, because some things are not edible. There is nothing quite as tasty as “duck à l’orange”—for those who are unsure, that is duck in orange. Pheasant is good, but my favourite bird for eating is a pigeon. I have a great appetite for pigeons because when I was a wee boy in Ballywalter, my cousin, who shot up in West Tyrone in the ’60s and ’70s—this is a true story—used to send pigeons by post down to Ballywalter, which is from the west to the east of the Province. Sometimes they arrived at Ballywalter in the Ards peninsula—perhaps not in the best of condition, but we cooked them anyway. I had a love of pigeons, and I still have it today. Yes, pigeon is my favourite bird—two-legged ones, with wings!
	Shooting plays a large part in the UK economy—worth £2 billion, and it supports the equivalent of 74,000 jobs. In these uncertain times, this sector is proving its popularity
	and its importance to its participants. On goods and services, it is estimated that shooters spend £2.5 billion each year, while shoot providers spend around £250 million each year on conservation. The Public and Corporate Economic Consultants estimate that shooting actually manages 10 times more land for conservation than the country’s nature reserves. Undoubtedly, then, for so many, country sports play an integral part in society.
	Despite this issue being raised on a fairly regular basis here, I feel that we still need to raise awareness of country sports and show just how important they are—not just for the love of them, but for the money they generate, the jobs they provide and for the conservation that comes off the back of them. With more than 600,000 people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland participating in shooting sports alone, I do not feel this is something that can be ignored, and I would like to see more done to encourage people to get involved with local country sports clubs—perhaps at country fairs. I had the opportunity last month to open an event at Shane’s castle, one of the great country fairs of Ireland. There is one fair at Shane’s castle in Northern Ireland and one at Birr castle in the Republic. Such events provide an opportunity to bring together people from all communities and encourage them to participate, whatever their gender or age.
	I want to record my thanks to the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and Game Conservancy USA for all the work that they do to help the shooting community, as well as farmers and landowners. They try to make young people’s involvement a reality, and they certainly have my support in that regard. However, I want to see more done for young people in schools. Most secondary schools in Northern Ireland offer a huge range of sports clubs, and, in many instances, equestrian clubs. However, rarely do I hear of fishing or shooting clubs, and, in the light of the figures provided by PACEC, I do not think that that is due to a lack of interest. I fear that it is due to the reputation that country sports often seem to carry. Because this is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland, we are changing the existing legislation to lower the minimum age at which people are allowed to shoot—under supervision, of course. That is good news, because it means that more young people can be introduced to shooting and enjoy it.
	I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that the general attitude to country sports is raised from toleration to celebration. We must do more to improve the situation in the years to come.

Tania Mathias: It was very interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). If the hon. Gentleman has not yet sorted out his holiday reading, I recommend the autobiography of Sir Peter Scott. He too was a shooter, but he put his rifle down to become of the world’s top conservationists. Who knows? The hon. Gentleman might change his mind.

Jim Shannon: I am quite well acquainted with the author to whom the hon. Lady refers. There is a bust of him in one of the wildfowling clubs in Comber, which is my constituency. He started off as a shooting person,
	and he enjoyed that, but he became a conservationist in the end. I do not think I shall ever be like that. I shall continue to be a shooter.

Tania Mathias: I will lend the hon. Gentleman my copy of the book if he cannot find it. Sir Peter Scott talks of the thrill of conservation being equivalent to the thrill that he had achieved while shooting. That is what persuaded him to—literally—put down the gun. So the hon. Gentleman can always change.
	I want to talk about a resident of my constituency, Wadih Chourey. He has lived in Twickenham for 18 years, but he is originally from Beirut. He also has a learning difficulty. His parents died in Lebanon in 2010, and he is being looked after by his brothers, who are also resident in Twickenham. I met one of them, Camil. They run a café and patisserie, and they are important members of the community. Wadih works in the café and patisserie as well. He has so many supporters that the petition asking for him to be allowed to remain the United Kingdom has tens of thousands of signatures.
	That petition came about because Wadih Chourey applied for leave to remain in the United Kingdom. His application was originally refused by the Home Office. Wadih then appealed, at some legal expense. The family were very stressed by the process, but the appeal was successful. The community—and, obviously, the Chourey family—were very happy. However, the Home Office then appealed against the successful appeal. The saga continued, with the family again having to invest in legal opinions, and more stress for the family and the community. The family then applied for permission to appeal against the Home Office’s appeal against their own original appeal. The situation right now is that we do not know whether Wadih can stay. His family has been granted permission to appeal, and the case might go to the Court of Appeal.
	I urge the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) to raise this matter with the Home Office and to follow up my plea to the Home Office to stop this sorry saga. This is family who are wanted in the community. Wadih is an important member of the community and we want him to stay. Please, please end all the horrible legal expense, as well as the stress for the family, for Wadih and for me by stopping this sorry saga.

Lisa Cameron: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate, in the custom of making my maiden speech. I pay sincere tribute to my predecessor, Michael McCann, who worked diligently as deputy leader of the council before becoming a Member of Parliament from 2010 to 2015. Prior to becoming an MP and working for the council, Michael McCann worked as a trade union official, a path that I have also trodden in my journey to this Chamber, having been a union representative in health for 14 years. I wish Michael McCann well. I am sure, given our backgrounds, that we must share a similar belief in workers’ rights and representation, even though we come from different political persuasions.
	I am extremely proud to be here, having been elected to represent the constituency in which I was raised, attended school, trained and worked in the NHS as a
	psychologist. My job has always been a conversation stopper. In fact, it has been known to empty rooms. People quieten, then back off, worrying that I might be analysing them, but rest assured: I have been far too busy for that recently. I am pleased to say, however, that all your assessments will soon be in the post!
	More seriously, I can attest that coming to this House is a psychological journey for any new MP, so I wish everyone success in adapting to its landscape. There are still some days when I wake up with Paul Simon’s words ringing in my ears: “How did I get here?” On reflection, however, I know that I am here for three key reasons: to represent the interests of my constituency, to influence those issues that I hold dear and to give Scotland a stronger voice.
	My constituency of East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow is diverse. It includes Scotland’s first new town, East Kilbride, which afforded hope and opportunity to families who had moved from the city, including my own. It is known fondly as the polo mint city, due to its keenness for building roundabouts. It is therefore a terrifying experience for all learner drivers. East Kilbride is an amazing place to visit. It has also had many important residents over the years, including Lorraine Kelly, Julie Wilson Nimmo, Ally McCoist and the House’s own Liam Fox.
	We also have beautiful rural landscapes, around the market town of Strathaven and the surrounding villages of Chapelton, Stonehouse, Auldhouse, Sandford, Drumclog, Glassford and Jackton—I hope I have not missed any out. To the south rest Blackwood, Kirkmuirhill and Lesmahagow, all affording wonderful scenery alongside historic links to traditional industry or farming.
	There is affluence in my constituency, too, in Thorntonhall, which has previously boasted the most expensive street in Scotland and has been home to footballers and personalities. The latter include Andy Cameron, whom I used to pretend to be related to when I was at school. Members will be pleased to know that I have never pretended to be related to any other famous Cameron, but I can inform the house that I have spent much of the past two months answering emails from interested American and Canadian citizens clarifying whether there was a connection.
	Distressingly, in my constituency there is also considerable growing poverty, which needs to be addressed, not solely by individual aspiration, but by collective enabling. Psychologically, few people aspire by having their crutch kicked from beneath them and being left to crawl, but most can be enabled, through opportunity, support and encouragement, which eventually teaches you to fly. Proudly, my constituency enables others, with a strong public sector workforce, and also, importantly, reaches out across the world, via the Department for International Development, to assist those vulnerable to inequality, climate change and poverty. In my role as climate justice spokesperson, and as a member of the International Development Committee, I am delighted to be able to directly support this crucial work.
	In terms of the issues I hold dear, having worked as a doctor in trauma and mental health, and with patients who have learning difficulties and developmental disorders, including autism, I want to champion continued investment in those areas of health, often previously viewed as the
	poor relation. Having served as an expert witness in cases of trauma, I understand only too well how crucial it is that survivors of childhood abuse, rape and domestic violence have a system that meets their needs and that ensures that justice prevails. Issues of institutionalised abuse must be dealt with transparently to ensure that survivors’ voices are heard. As a society we can never stand by in silence.
	It is true to say that so far I have had some frustrating days in this House, but I have also been heartened by small things that I did not expect. An unexpected influence has been attending Prayers prior to the sitting of the House, where we are reminded daily of our responsibility to improve people’s well-being. That is the litmus test of why we are here, and we must question ourselves and whether our policies improve people’s lives. I believe we are here to make a difference.
	Fundamentally, alongside my 55 Scottish National party colleagues, we are also here to give Scotland a stronger voice. It is clear that change could never have come from within the system and so change had to be sent here, by the people. We are here to try to make a difference to people’s lives, and we are here for the devolution of powers that raise revenue, growth, jobs and productivity—powers that also protect those most vulnerable and that deliver social justice. These ideologies can and always should, in a progressive society, go hand in hand.

Stephen Phillips: It is a great honour and privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) after such a powerful and eloquent maiden speech. I fear that she is going to have spend some of the next five years here teaching me how to pronounce all the names in her constituency. She stands in a long tradition, in that I think it took the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) at least five years before I started to get the name of his constituency right. I know that she will be a valued Member of the House, not only from that contribution, but from the fantastic work she has done in her constituency in her profession before she came into politics. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to congratulate her on such a fantastic speech.
	These are, of course, the debates before the summer recess and I shall try not to detain the House for too long, but I hope I can be forgiven for making one observation about the procedure of the House. These debates previously took place in a way that permitted Ministers from across the whole of Government, by Department, to respond to the concerns of hon. Members that were raised before the long break and fell within their particular areas of ministerial responsibility. Although it is an enormous pleasure to see my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on the Front Bench, and although he and the Deputy Leader of the House will take the concerns of the House back to each individual Department, the transition that we have made so that the Leader or Deputy Leader of the House now responds to this debate and individual Ministers do not do so is one that should be looked at by the Procedure Committee. It is, in my respectful observation, a change that does little to enable the concerns of Members to be brought to the forefront of Ministers.
	I wish to detain the House briefly on two matters. The first of those is one that troubles me greatly, as my right hon. Friend knows. I have campaigned on it in the past and I intend to campaign on it in this Parliament: it is the effect of corruption across the world and what it means for the people of this country.
	The House debated the matter recently in an Adjournment debate, and there have been other opportunities to raise it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that this is an issue that must be tackled not only by this Government, but by the international community. It is a fact that very many of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people have their lives touched to a considerable degree, and not in a way that is good for them, by the corruption that is rife, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa and the developing world. The effect of that is devastating for those who live in appalling conditions, as many do in the developing world, but it also has an effect on all of us in the United Kingdom, because while that corruption takes place, our security is threatened. It is the thing that drives economic migration to Europe and drives people to take the desperate measures to try to cross the Mediterranean to look for a better life in Europe, albeit illegally. It is also the thing that runs the risk of driving the terrorist threat not only in this country but in all the countries that are allied with us. It is therefore something that the Government are rightly focusing on in this Parliament.
	I wish to hear not only that this matter is a priority for the Government—the Prime Minister has rightly said that it is—but more details on the anti-corruption seminar that the Prime Minister intends to run in this country next year for all UN nations and, indeed, what is intended to be achieved by that summit. Although we have a framework that is principally centred on the UN anti-corruption convention and to which many nations are signed up, it remains the fact that very little effort goes into monitoring and enforcement. As I have said, that is something that not only affects those in the developing world—some of the most vulnerable and poor people to whom we owe a moral responsibility—but threatens our security here.

Bob Stewart: I thank my hon. Friend, who is also a very good friend, for giving way. It has always struck me in so many nations in the world that, when the leader of a country takes up the reins of power, far too many of them believe that every single thing in that country belongs to them, which leads to the suffering of the people.

Stephen Phillips: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The trouble is that corruption permeates in many of these countries from the top to the bottom. The view that previously held sway in much of the developed world was that there was nothing that could be done about it, and that it was, if not a desirable thing, something that we had to put up with because there was no way of getting people to enter public service—given the rates of pay on offer to them—unless they could subsidise their income through corruption. I hope that that view has largely disappeared, but it is something that must be stamped on. We in the developed world need to take action and tackle this scourge of corruption throughout the developing world—and in the developed world where we see it as well—not just
	because it is our moral responsibility, but because it affects our own security. I hope that I will hear something on that matter from the Deputy Leader of the House.
	I want to touch on a very far-flung corner of this land—perhaps not as far-flung as the constituencies of some of those on the Scottish National party Benches, although having talked to civil servants in Whitehall, I could be forgiven for holding the belief that they seem to think that the part of the country that I am about to come on to is even further away than Orkney and Shetland. I speak, of course, of God’s great county, Lincolnshire, in which my constituency lies, as well as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who I see is in her place.
	Contrary to popular belief in Whitehall and, dare I say it, among some Ministers not only in this Government but in Governments of the past, Lincolnshire does not lie somewhere in the North sea. It is only an hour and 20 minutes or so from King’s Cross station or perhaps two hours’ drive up the A1. It would be rather nice if we could see Ministers and, perhaps more importantly, civil servants occasionally taking the trip to Lincolnshire so that they could see for themselves not only what a wonderful county it is, but quite how much we are affected by some of the spending decisions made here in London. I have in mind two particular areas that I want to focus on.
	The first of those is Lincolnshire police service, which is now the poorest funded police service in the country per capita. That is notwithstanding the fact that our population is as sparse in many ways as the population in some other areas of the United Kingdom, such as those in Scotland. The result of the underfunding of Lincolnshire police, which has been going on for decades, is that the police service in Lincolnshire is now stretched so thin that no further cuts can be made other than on the front line, and if that happens, the service which is received by people in Lincolnshire will be even worse than it is now.
	The permanent secretary in the Home Department came to the Public Accounts Committee this week and I tackled him—quite feistily, it has to be said—on the past settlements which have been made in relation to police funding in Lincolnshire. He effectively admitted what we who live in the county have all known for far too long—that we have been on the receiving end of a very unfair funding formula which, thankfully, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime and Criminal Justice is now looking at. I hope we will get a new funding formula by the end of the year.
	That discrimination, which is what it is, against the rural folk of Lincolnshire has been going on for far too long. What I would like to hear from the Deputy Leader of the House is something about the timetable for the introduction of the new funding formula, even if she has to write to me about it, so that I can go back to the police commissioner and the chief constable in Lincolnshire in due course and tell them precisely when we can expect the police service in Lincolnshire to be properly funded.
	It is not, of course, just the police. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) raised as recently as this morning in Transport questions the gross underfunding of our road network, about which the House has heard from Members on all sides during this debate. That, too, needs to be tackled.
	The other area on which I want to focus is local authority funding and, in particular, the funding of Lincolnshire County Council. As matters stand, Lincolnshire County Council is facing a 55% reduction in its grant funding over the next four years. That is, in effect, a £68 million reduction for one of the largest counties in the country with one of the most difficult areas to serve because of the sparsity of its population and the fact that we have ribbon development along many of our arterial and other roads. At the same time as that reduction is going to take place, budget pressures will fall on the county council, which mean that in 2015-16 alone approximately £31 million will have to be found just to cover inflation and an increase in adult social costs.
	The funding formula for local government, not just for Lincolnshire but for many rural counties, has been unfair for far too long. Many of us argue in this House year after year that rural English counties need more money, yet very little ever seems to change. I hope that as a result of this debate the Deputy Leader of the House will go back to colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government and make it clear that this inequity, which results in public services—which cost just as much to run in rural Lincolnshire as they do in rural Scotland—being underfunded, has to be brought to an end. Staffing numbers are already reducing, and many programmes that the county council has been running, including, for example, in relation to public health, which we all trumpet in this House, have already had to be cut. Our libraries budget has had to fall, to the great detriment of those who use them. The same is true of children’s centres. Indeed, the number of firemen on each fire engine has fallen from five to four, which I understand is the absolute minimum allowed by statute.
	All these matters indicate that counties such as Lincolnshire—it is Lincolnshire that I am concentrating on, of course—have been at the thin end of the wedge for far too long. Far too much funding has gone into urban areas and perhaps, dare I say it, to the devolved regions. That has to be remedied. It has to be a task of this Government. It has to be something we tackle, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle would agree. Unless we tackle it, there will be a real problem with rural England continuing to feel that it is discriminated against at a time when more money is being ploughed into our towns and cities and to the devolved regions, and at a time when every single public service in Lincolnshire for which local authorities are responsible has been cut to the bone.

Mark Williams: It is a privilege to have an opportunity to raise an important constituency case in this debate. I would first like to echo the tributes to the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) for her excellent maiden speech. Not only did she talk appropriately about her high regard for her constituents—and evidently her constituents’ high regard for her—but I was particularly touched by her reference to prayers, when we are reminded daily that, whatever our political standpoint and whatever manifesto we were elected on, our first priority is always to our constituents. Having listened to her speech,
	I know the dedication she has shown already to her constituents. I wish her well in the months and years ahead.
	I want to talk about an issue that I have spoken about in the Chamber on four occasions over the past three or four years: namely, the mis-selling of interest rate swap products by the commercial banks and the effect that has had on some of the small and medium-sized enterprises in my constituency. I will focus, in particular, on fixed-rate loans, tailored business loans, sold to constituents of mine by the Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank, whose motto is, “We care about here.” Over a period of time, these loans were peddled by overzealous relationship managers, who managed to cause havoc to a large number of SMEs in Aberystwyth, the largest town in my constituency. The asset-rich farms, hostelries and shops of my agriculture and tourism-dependent constituency were deliberately targeted by greedy salesmen.
	In that context, I want to talk today about one constituent in particular, Mr Mansel Beechey, who I believe to be a victim of mis-selling by Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank, and the difficulties he has had in seeking redress from the authorities. Aberystwyth’s Hen Llew Du public house is a long-established and successful local family business. Mr Beechey has owned it for 30 years, and his family have worked hard to create a popular, lively and iconic Welsh social hub that welcomes locals and students alike.
	In 2008 Mr Beechey decided to expand the business by buying another pub with a restaurant for his daughter to run. Having identified suitable premises in his home village of Llangrannog in the south of Ceredigion, he was offered what was talked up as a straightforward loan by his relationship manager, a local man known well to Mansel for many years. The Beechey family borrowed money from the bank on a variable rate basis to purchase their new business. The loan was to be partly secured by their pub in Aberystwyth. However, unbeknown to Mr Beechey, approval for the tailored business loan was granted based on an incorrect interpretation of his accounts. None the less, on or around 28 January 2008, Mr Beechey signed a variable rate loan agreement with Clydesdale bank to borrow £700,000. His facility letter stated:
	“The Borrower may at any time prepay all or any part of the Loan.”
	There was no mention of any form of fee, cost or penalty for early pre-payment or repayment of the amount of the loan, nor was there any reference to any of the following terms that might indicate a possible cost for early repayment.
	Mr Beechey drew down the bulk of the loan in early February to complete the purchase of the second business and immediately began extensive refurbishment work. Once the project was under way and the Beecheys began repaying capital on the loan, it became clear that there would be issues of affordability. At that point, Mr Beechey discovered that the friendly and trusted bank manager had submitted figures that showed a far larger net income from the Yr Hen Lew Du pub in Aberystwyth than was actually the case.
	Then there was a second bombshell. The Beecheys were told that National Australia bank, of which Clydesdale is a part, was withdrawing from the UK hospitality sector, and owing to a stated technical breach of the loan,
	which the Beechey family disputed, the bank was demanding that they came up with a strategy to repay the entire loan within just a few weeks. Against a difficult economic background, with falling property prices, the Beecheys realised that the rapid sale of the new pub and restaurant that they had only just bought was unlikely to raise enough money to repay the entire loan, so their suggested strategy was to sell the new business and restructure any remaining debt. However, Clydesdale told them that if they repaid even part of their loan before the end of a 15-year term, they would incur a “breakage fee” of some £200,000—a not insubstantial amount for a small family-run business—even though it was the bank itself that was forcing early repayment. I repeat term 3.1 of the facility letter that the family received:
	“The Borrower may at any time prepay all or any part of the Loan”.
	The Beechey family were never warned about the potential scale of any early repayment charges. They have since discovered that instead of the simple fixed-rate loan that they thought they had, their tailored business loan had an embedded, or hidden, interest rate hedging arrangement, or swap—a complex derivative product that would protect the bank against interest rate fluctuations during the term of the loan. They now know that this would have been established during the phone call to fix the interest rate with the bank manager’s “colleague”, who was almost certainly a registered derivatives trader—not that that was known to the Beechey family.
	Mr Beechey first came to my office in December 2012 about this problem. He had already, in April, made a complaint to the bank through his solicitor about the mis-sale of the TBL—an unregulated product. Appallingly, it took Clydesdale and Yorkshire bank over six months to respond to that formal complaint. We are talking about a business operating on the margins it needs to survive. This cloud should not last; it needs to be dealt with. Having taken six months to respond to the initial written complaint, to this day the bank has still not fully addressed it, despite my office facilitating meetings with its most senior personnel.
	Mansel Beechey had always made it clear to his relationship manager that he wanted a loan that was flexible, sustainable and affordable. He is an experienced businessman, and he was shrewd enough to know that if things did not go to plan in the new venture, he would need a loan that he could repay or pre-pay at any time. Indeed, that is exactly what was said in one part of what turned out to be a complicated agreement. Yet three weeks after taking out the loan, over the course of three days and three telephone calls with what turned out to be bank treasury officials, the seemingly straightforward loan had morphed into the now infamous Clydesdale and Yorkshire tailored business loan—the fixed-rate loan with hidden swap. Two years into the loan, the Beechey family found themselves in an impossible position. They could not afford to pay the increased interest charges and so could not service the debt, and nor were they able to sell the business and repay the loan because of the huge break charges that they were initially unaware of.
	The name “tailored business loan” was given by National Australia bank to a new type of loan designed to look like a traditional fixed-rate loan but with traditional penalty charges for breaking the loan replaced with an
	open-ended break cost. Of course, Clydesdale and Yorkshire was not the only bank to provide such loans. It issued, on its own admission, 8,300 of them. The Financial Conduct Authority has disclosed that 69,738 were issued across a range of banks. There has been at least a suspicion that the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank manufactured these loans to avoid regulation.
	I was very interested in the Treasury Committee’s inquiry into these matters at the end of the last Parliament. It took evidence from David Thorburn, the chief executive officer of the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank, and Debbie Crosbie, who bears the rather promising title of executive director for customer trust and confidence. Their impression of what needs to happen and what the bank will do to put matters right when a customer is mis-sold one of their products is very different from the reality experienced by constituent.
	When Ms Crosbie appeared before the Treasury Committee last summer, she said of fixed-rate TBLs that
	“the customer gets a fixed payment for a fixed period of time and that payment will never change as long as the customer does not want to terminate the agreement early.”
	Yet the Beecheys’ payments were increased more than once, since the bank was simply able to vary the margin that they paid on top of the fixed rate. Mr Beechey never envisaged that that might happen. He understood that a fixed-rate loan meant what Debbie Crosbie had described. Indeed, her boss, the chief executive, David Thorburn said:
	“This is a product which does what it says on the tin.”
	I remind the House of the evidence that Ms Crosbie gave to the Treasury Committee last June. To his credit, the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), the Treasury spokesman for the SNP, asked the fundamental question about the sales process:
	“If a customer is able to identify that that process did not happen, that that warning was not explicit, that would count as a mis-sell would it…?”
	Ms Crosbie confirmed:
	“We believe that once you examine that process, and find that it had not been carried out in accordance with what we had agreed is appropriate, we would absolutely redress a customer and we have done so on a number of occasions.”
	I do not doubt that Clydesdale has addressed these matters on a number of occasions, but not in the 8,300 cases; and the other banks have certainly not addressed all 69,000 cases. The few offers made to people such as my constituents are derisory and have been made only under acute pressure. Only a portion of the overcharged interest is offered to be refunded, and no consequential losses are considered at all.
	Over the past two or three years, we in this House have travelled a great distance in seeking justice for SMEs that have been mis-sold interest rate swap products. We have moved some way, but we are nowhere near where we should be. The public and the businesses I am dealing with find it confusing and frustrating given that evidence to the Treasury Committee last year shows that the banks all too often wittingly knew what they were about when they sold these products. They were delaying responses to complainants, denying the existence of the problem and diluting the seriousness of the complaint by not voluntarily offering full disclosure of information.
	I am mindful of your stipulation about the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me cover this quickly. Mr Andy Keats of the Serious Banking Complaints Bureau has commented that
	“the largest complaint by far is that there is no access to bank held documentation… The bank relies on concealment of your central file, committee meeting reports and minutes, internal and external valuations of your property”.
	That has been my constituent’s experience.
	In the past six months, during which my constituent has put in simultaneous requests to both the Clydesdale and Yorkshire Bank and the Financial Ombudsman Service, I have seen transcripts of conversations between my constituent and officials that are quite different from those initially provided in response to the first subject access request made to the bank. I have seen three different credit reports and three different sets of credit figures, and, worryingly, none of the figures was correct. Things seem to have been changed at the stroke of a pen. That is a serious but deeply concerning allegation. The Treasury Committee has exposed great misconduct, yet we cannot move forward unless we have complete transparency in the process.
	I believe that the process of redress is not working as well as it needs to. The issue has been approached in a far more positive way in New Zealand. An arrangement has been made between the New Zealand Commerce Commission and a New Zealand bank, ANZ, under which the bank paid compensation of 18.5 million New Zealand dollars. Those funds will be distributed to affected customers who complained to the regulator. That has been done in New Zealand and it needs to be done here.
	Above all, my plea is for the Minister to look mindfully at the suggestion that she will hear from the all-party group on interest rate mis-selling—the Bully Banks group —which is ably chaired by the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), to push for a new, fair banking Bill that will regulate all products and services for commercial enterprises. I hope that we can push for fruition soon so as to benefit my constituent, Mr Beechey and, I believe, many others across the country.

Fiona Bruce: The 2014 publication of the United Nation’s Commission of Inquiry report into human rights violations in North Korea was a defining moment. No longer was the suffering of the North Korean people overshadowed by nuclear weapons, political stalemates or sensationalist media stories. Instead, human rights rightfully took centre stage as the world became fully aware of a theatre of unimaginable horror situated in the northern half of the Korean peninsula. Detailing evidence that shocked even those of us who have sat with countless North Korean refugees and listened to their testimonies, the UN report documented the most egregious abuses of humanity in the modern era: state-sanctioned starvation, the prolific use of torture, endemic sexual violence, the use of political prison camps, and public executions as tools of social control.
	I have spoken on this issue a number of times in the House, but new Members are present so I will give just a few examples of the kind of horrific torture and treatment that people in North Korea experience. Lee Hee-ho
	gave evidence to the Commission of Inquiry—she later became the First Lady of the Republic of Korea, following the experiences that she suffered with her husband. She told of how supporters of democracy were
	“Deprived of any clothing and mercilessly pummelled with wooden bats, deprived of sleep, and had water poured into their nostrils while hanging upside down like so much beef hanging from hooks in the slaughter house.”
	Another piece of evidence received by the North Korea all-party group described one woman who was arrested for her faith and
	“assigned to pull the cart used to remove excrement from the prison latrines…the guards made her lick off excrement that spilled over”.
	Children are kept in classes in prison camps, and there is a story of how one child who had picked a few grains of wheat from a field on the way to class was accused of stealing by her teacher. She was murdered by that teacher—beaten to death with a wooden stick that day. A teenager working in the prison camp accidentally dropped a sewing machine. As a punishment he had one finger cut off. I could go on.
	I am proud that the UK, EU and European states were instrumental in the establishment of the UN Human Rights Council resolution that mandated that Commission of Inquiry, and for which our all-party group hosted testimonial sessions. A General Assembly resolution, co-written by the EU, acknowledged the Commission’s findings as crimes against humanity, and encouraged the UN Security Council to consider targeted human rights sanctions and to refer the situation to the International Criminal Court—no fewer than 111 countries demanded that, following the publication of the report.
	The COI report has placed human rights on to the Security Council’s permanent agenda, ensuring ongoing scrutiny, and it is clear that since its release, Governments and non-governmental organisations have devoted much thought to how the international community should respond. I am pleased that one recommendation of the Commission—the establishment of a field office in Seoul to monitor human rights violations in North Korea—opened on 23 June. We must press for all the other recommendations in the report to be implemented.
	The international community must do more. Momentum must be maintained because every day people in North Korea suffer the most indescribable atrocities in prison camps, in what can only be described as today’s holocaust. We must look for tangible means to improve the lot of the ordinary North Korean, at new forms of diplomacy that can transform North Korean society, and to untrodden paths that lead to unfettered engagement with ordinary North Korean citizens.
	We must consider whether the decade plus of on-the-ground engagement inside North Korea, pursued by the international community and commonly termed “critical engagement”, has been enough. Is there any evidence that our engagement policies to date have transformed North Korean society for the better, improved human rights, or compelled North Korean decision makers to alter their violent course? In the wake of the horrific contents of the Commission of Inquiries report, the short answer must be no. North Korean officials continue to commit crimes against humanity in spite of our ambassadorial presence in Pyongyang, and in full knowledge of international human rights law. As Justice
	Michael Kirby noted in the final page of his COI report the North Korean Government
	“has for decades pursued policies”—
	indeed, for 60 years—
	“involving crimes that shock the conscience of humanity raises questions about the inadequacy of the response of the international community.”
	Like my colleagues in the all party group on North Korea, I am a firm advocate of engagement with the North Korean Government and the North Korean people, but engagement is not analogous to appeasement. Engagement with the North Korean people should not be confined to a small, hand-picked group of elites and outer-elites encountered by our engagement projects. There are 24 million North Koreans who have their substantive rights violated on a daily basis. We must reach those North Koreans.
	Our engagement with North Korea in the post-COI era should not simply be renewed, it must be revised. Cracks in North Korea’s façade are appearing: a burgeoning unofficial economy; normative changes in society and an elite group of decision makers who operate without checks or balances, all point to opportunities of influence. We should not set out to collapse the DPRK, but embassies and Government should work to affect tangible change and not just pursue engagement for its own sake. The question is what next, after the publication of the COI report? I do not have all the answers, but here are some.
	The international community should invest greater time and resources in understanding how North Korea organises its power structures. How is power transferred all the way from Kim Jong-un to a local party secretary who allows the abuse of women and children? Closer working with non-governmental organisations and others to facilitate the exchange of information with North Korea should be supported. In addition, the foreign policies of concerned Governments should work in a more co-ordinated manner to exhibit increased energies to address human rights atrocities suffered by the people of North Korea. This should not be exclusively, or even primarily, occupied with the nuclear threat. Emphasising the importance of human rights should be a thread of steel running through all diplomatic engagement.
	China should be pressed to end immediately its practice of the forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees. It should be called on to permit refugees to travel to neighbouring countries, and it should allow international observers to look into the conditions in which North Korean refugees live in China. Any future six-party talks should ensure that pressing for human rights improvements are a prominent element of negotiations. Further accountability measures should be pursued through UN Security Council channels. There should be fact-finding missions. A UN General Assembly resolution could determine the creation of tribunals to try North Koreans, possibly even in absentia, and other alternative justice mechanisms to complement the International Criminal Court process.
	The North Korean Government must be challenged when reports reach our ears, such as those recently published by John Hopkins University that anthrax and other biological agents have been tested on disabled people in North Korea. Every effort should be made to ameliorate the desperate plight of the North Korean
	people themselves. We should pursue ever more creative ways of breaking the information blockade that new technology such as DVDs, mobiles and USBs provide, and urge radio stations, in particular the BBC World Service, to broadcast directly into the Korean peninsula.
	Finally, we should support the provision of aid through reliable NGOs, such as UNICEF and the Red Cross. UNICEF is warning of North Korea’s worst drought in 100 years. This is critical in a country that is already utterly malnourished and where the Government are incapable—indeed, often unwilling—to provide even the most basic sustenance to many of their people. During its last drought in the 1990s, millions of people were reduced to eating grass and bark as they starved to death. Let us respond to the call from UNICEF and provide this basic help to the people of North Korea.

Marion Fellows: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my first speech in the House. First, I want to thank all of the staff here for their invaluable help. Without them, I literally would not be here. I have never before been guided so gently to where I should be, or given so much advice, and encouraged all the time to drink water, keeping me on the right road. I am truly grateful.
	However, my main thanks today must be to my campaign team, led, ably and wonderfully, by my husband and agent—and we are still happily married, an achievement in itself. I was supported by a wondrous team, full of talent and ability and of every age and faith—a real mixter-maxter, as we say—who made the campaign fun and who watched over me like angels.
	I know that there are some hon. Members in this House who have spent their whole adult life in preparation for being here; I haven’t. I have lived a full and rather enjoyable life—in fact, I want to go on doing that—but I am, or have been, a wife, a mother, a granny, a teacher, a local councillor, a trade union official, an auditor, a bookkeeper, a housewife, a student in the swinging sixties, the chairman of the parent-teacher association and a secretary of my local community council. Each of these jobs and responsibilities has taught me a little bit about myself and a wee bit about the world around us. I know how to knit a jumper, although it has been suggested that as a deputy Whip I should, perhaps, consider knitting some other suitable accessories for the job. I can persuade a lazy 16-year-old to turn up to class on time, I can negotiate a fair pay deal for my colleagues and I know how to balance a set of books—a declining skill around here, I believe. [Laughter.]
	I know that some of my colleagues’ youthfulness has attracted a bit of attention here in the Chamber—and beyond. I hope to complement their great strengths by bringing my experience and skills to bear on our work. Too often I hear that those of us with more life experience are overlooked. I promise to make my experience count, and to stand up in this place for the grannies, grandads, retired and never-going-to-retire, wordly wise men and women across the country. We have a lot to offer our communities and this place.
	But four years after I retired for the first time, the people of my own community gave me an opportunity to use my skills and experience here, as their first female
	non-Labour MP. That is what I fully intend to do. I was voted here in record numbers, with a 38% swing and a majority of 11,898, as a declaration by the people of Motherwell and Wishaw that they wanted change, not the austerity policies ideologically driven towards deficit reduction which relegate the dignity of human beings behind the priority of the balance sheet. They want an end to the persecution of those least able to care for themselves and their families through misfortune and disability.
	I want to remind the Labour hon. Members who shouted at me on my first day in this Chamber, “Why are you here? You don’t even want to be here,” of my response to them and to this House. I am here because I was democratically elected. And no—some sort of strange virus has not gripped the people of Scotland; they voted for change, and for a stronger voice for Scotland. And to those on the Government Benches I say, I was elected to be a full Member of this House. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am charged with the hopes and aspirations of the people of my constituency, who want better from this place.
	I am very proud to come from the area that elected the first ever Scottish National party MP, Dr Robert McIntyre. He was elected in 1945. I also come from a place in Scotland where the majority of people voted yes to independence for Scotland last year. Every single one of the 27,295 votes I received from the people of Motherwell and Wishaw in this election is a reminder to me that I have a great responsibility to all of my constituents, not just those who voted for me. I fully intend to do my best to deliver the change my constituents want to see.
	I am very proud of the industrial heritage of my constituency and the roots we have in steel and coal. The announcement earlier today of the threat to 720 jobs in Rotherham will be felt in my constituency, where so many jobs in steel were lost. It was fantastic to see the recent unveiling of “The Steelman”, an inspirational sculpture by Andy Scott, set as a memorial to those who left to work in heavy industries and did not come home.
	I know that this subject was close to the heart of my predecessor, Frank Roy. I know from his kind and gracious words to me on the evening of the general election that he was and is proud of the people of the constituency, as am I. I want to wish him and his family well for the future.
	I asked my constituents through Facebook what was great about our community. The answers came in thick and fast. There is a real sense of social justice in Motherwell and Wishaw, and the people want a fairer and more equal community—one reason why my constituents voted so well in the referendum was that they are really committed to social justice.
	The people are the best thing in my constituency, someone said on Facebook, as they try to regenerate from the devastating loss of all the major industries in the area. The children in the local schools are fully engaged politically, and they are a strong future base. It is about adapting to change, I was told, and having hope, and now we must not let those children down. I was also told, and I know, that the constituency is the best of both worlds—minutes from Glasgow and minutes
	from the Clyde valley; only an hour from the beach, and 45 minutes from our capital, Edinburgh. It is an ideal location.
	Motherwell was famous for Olympian swimmers. Sir Alexander Gibson, founder of the Scottish national orchestra, was born in Motherwell. You can walk to New Lanark and Glasgow along the Clyde walkway and take in Baron’s Haugh, the RSPB reserve, which is a great place for twitchers—I do not see many here today. It is an area once rich in natural resources, which was of interest to the Romans, who built a bath house in what is now Strathclyde Country Park. The park was also the site of other aquatic spectacles—in last year’s hugely popular Commonwealth games, the triathlon and the rowing competitions took place there. One of my constituents is Charlie Flynn, “The Mailman”, who won a gold in boxing at the Commonwealth games. We are very articulate in Motherwell and Wishaw—Charlie more than me, it has to be said. Strathclyde Park also contains Scotland’s theme park—culture, sports and dodgems in one place.
	The former Ravenscraig steel mill is now the site of a sports hub, the envy of many other places, with a full-sized indoor football pitch, and a new town is slowly being built on the site.
	Did Members know that if they buy a kilt anywhere in the UK, it was probably made in Motherwell by Glenisla Kilts? Gallant Members who served in Scottish regiments would have been dressed by that company too, as it makes all the kilts for the Army. It has also worked with Vivienne Westwood on cutting-edge designs. The Dalzell works, now owned by Tata Steel, still rolls steel, and there are many enterprising businesses throughout the area.
	I have to say, I was disappointed not to see Mr Speaker’s comments on my Facebook page, as I know that he had his own happy month living across the road from where I now live when he was a candidate in Motherwell and Wishaw in 1987. He was taken in by the people living there, and my constituency has long taken in folk from afar: Irish refugees after the famine, Lithuanians after the first world war, Congolese refugees more recently, and Polish families, who all add to our society.
	When some people talk about the communities in Motherwell and Wishaw, they define us by what we once were, not what we are or could be in the future. Our job is to look to the future. I agree with the bard, not Rabbie, but the English bard—Shakespeare, I think he is called. He wrote that
	“what’s past is prologue; what to come, In yours and my discharge.”
	My community, my constituency and my country have fantastic assets and attributes. The people are the centre of that. It is not where people are from but where they are going that matters, and our job is to lead the way. To quote my national bard, in his “Epistle to a Young Friend”, he cautioned him to “better reck the rede”—in English, to take advice. I would advise the Government to take heed. The people of Scotland are holding them to account and they sent 56 representatives here to remind the Government to give us what was promised in the vow. We want that, and we want to be full Members of Parliament.
	I promise that in my time here over the next five years I will work hard to realise my constituency’s fantastic potential, and be a hard-working and approachable local MP. I am looking forward to it.

Neil Parish: It is very nice to follow the maiden speech by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I wish her all the best in the Parliament. We all bring different attributes and experiences here, and she was very down-to-earth in describing herself as a mother, a teacher and a bookkeeper. All those attributes will be very useful here in Parliament. She also said that she very much wants to represent her constituents and, irrespective of our political party, that is something that we really value. Our constituents will definitely hold us to account when it comes to the next election. I welcome the hon. Lady and hope she enjoys her time here. I will not go into great detail on some of her political points, because it was her maiden speech, but I congratulate her.
	I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this recess debate. We have just heard from a Scottish Member, but if we look at the south-west we see that the borders of Tewkesbury are three miles closer to the Scottish border than they are to Land’s End. That shows how big the south-west is, and how necessary it is for infrastructure to get there. We often talk about rail being electrified to Bristol, but it needs to be electrified all the way to Cornwall, because there is a lot of west country in between. The Government are focusing on getting the infrastructure right, but we need to do more because that helps our constituents and businesses—generally, it creates the economy that we all want.
	The A303 being dualled from Stonehenge to Ilminster, along the A358 to the M5, is right, but there is a stretch between Ilminster and Honiton that needs serious improvement. I really want to see proposals from the Government to make sure that we do that. We have agreement from the area of outstanding natural beauty that the road can be built, and we need to get to grips with that.
	On broadband, we need to ensure greater competition. BT is a great company, but it has almost a monopoly when it comes to rolling out broadband. In some areas, it moves in, delivers broadband to a few properties and then the rest of the properties are missed out, which makes it difficult for other companies to come in to provide it. I would love to see Ministers come forward with a voucher system, especially in the areas that are hardest to reach. If we cannot get connected through BT, let us get it through wireless, as we are deciding to do in Exmoor and Dartmoor. We have got to get our constituents broadband—not only individual constituents and residents, but businesses. It is very much part of the infrastructure that we require, and I look forward to it being delivered throughout Devon and Somerset and beyond, but we need greater competition so that BT does not dictate to us exactly what we should have.
	My final point, as I promised to be brief, is that I have been very fortunate to be elected Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. We are very keen to start looking into what is happening with the single farm payment, making sure it is delivered on time; and to ensure that TB is eradicated from this country, with the necessary measures taken not only in testing cattle, but in making sure that wildlife is clear of the disease as well. There is much to do in the farming world, because prices are poor, and we need to help with that. We also need to look at flooding, and at having more internal drainage boards so that more
	local people and more local knowledge can be used to deliver a much better drainage system at a much more competitive price. So, there is much to do, but we are more than up to doing it.

Catherine West: I am sure that Members throughout the Chamber will join the community in Wood Green in mourning the loss of Mr Erdogan Guzel. Our condolences go to his wife and two children, who lost their beloved father and husband. Mr Guzel was fatally shot last Friday while sitting outside his friend’s bakery on Lordship Lane on a sunny afternoon. Mr Guzel was gunned down in a drive-by shooting with a sawn-off shotgun, in a tragic case of mistaken identity. Ms Sonya Gencheva was also injured and is today in a critical but stable condition in hospital—another innocent passerby caught up in that appalling crime.
	Gun crime is terrifying, and I am pleased that the police have moved quickly to apprehend a number of suspects. I wonder whether it will be possible to debate, in the autumn session of Parliament, what increased measures can be taken to prevent gun crime in our cities, among worryingly increasing levels of violent crime. After today’s debate, I am going to hold a special debate about this issue in my community. I was keen to take the wishes of the whole House to the community of Wood Green, who are still reeling in shock as a result of this terrible crime.

Therese Coffey: It is a great pleasure to reply to this debate, and I congratulate the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. We heard from the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is a local lass made good. She pointed out that our analysis reports are in the post—monitoring 649 subjects for the next five years would keep anyone busy—but, as she also pointed out, she is already busy representing her constituents. She talked about how her constituents helped others, through public services and the work that Department for International Development civil servants do in her constituency. I am sure that she is very proud of them, and they will be proud of her today. I can honestly say that “polo mint city” is a better description than Basingstoke’s, where my first job was, which was known as the doughnut—again, the reference being to roundabouts.
	The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) was right to praise her family’s support during the election campaign—I am sure that she will continue to have a happy marriage. I am really impressed that she is already a Whip; that is fast promotion, indeed. I was a Whip in the previous Parliament.
	I was surprised that the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow denied any relationship to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, but I am sure that together they could each wear the tartan made in the constituency of her hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw. You never know: one day we may see a kilt or two in the Chamber, even if it is worn by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, with one of your beautiful scarves.
	The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw also mentioned her life experience and referred to balancing the books in her professional life. I gently point out that that is what we are seeking to do, with our long-term economic plan, as we move from deficit to surplus, because at the end of the day we have to balance the books; every accountant knows that.
	I will do my best to go through the speeches in turn. In starting the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) rightly brought to the House’s attention the council’s closure of the cattle market, which is to be demolished, with barely a week’s notice, and she pointed out that Derby City Council had not invested in the facility. I have heard this about other councils. It is a great shame that county towns do not recognise the heritage or the living countryside that surrounds them. It is important that county towns act for the entire county, and I suggest that she considers approaching farmers to see whether they could apply to make it an asset of community value, so that if the opportunity to buy the site comes up, they would have the option of doing so. The only other advice I can offer is that she follows this up with our colleagues in the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether there are other options. In addition, the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, who has just spoken, will have heard her point or will read it in Hansard.
	The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), who is not in his place, referred to having a list of speakers at the back of the Speaker’s Chair. The traditional reason for not having one is to ensure that people debate, rather than just read pre-prepared speeches. The very good debate yesterday was an opportunity for people to make different points, rather than necessarily repeating the same ones. I understand that Members all have busy lives, but I particularly enjoy sitting in the Chamber and listening to our debates—I know that you do a lot of that as well, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue, however, is probably a matter for the Procedure Committee to consider, alongside the review I hope it will conduct into our proposals on Standing Orders.
	On English devolution, the hon. Gentleman suggested that because the Committee stage of the Scotland Bill was taken on the Floor of the House, so too should that of the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill. The Scotland Bill covers not one particular legislative area, however, but the transfer of general areas of responsibility from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. I am not convinced, therefore, that it is necessary to take the other Bill on the Floor of the House, but as always all Members will be able to contribute on Report, even if they were not selected for the Committee. On financial devolution and income tax assignment, he seems to have missed the fact that the coalition Government achieved a lot with the Localism Act 2011. The powers are out there and deals are being done, so I encourage him to work with his local authority in Nottingham and the Greater Nottingham area to take advantage of that.
	The hon. Gentleman said that his constituency had the lowest number of people going to university, and I think he mentioned the removal of the maintenance grant. When we made our changes to fees in the last
	Parliament, it was said that the number of young people going to university would collapse and that people from poorer backgrounds would simply not go, but that has not proven to be the case. What matters, as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said, is ensuring that children have access to good schools and are not frightened of going to university. In that respect, the early-years preparation she mentioned does matter.
	I now move on to the marathon speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess). It was quite a canter. In fact, Southend seems to have everything except a racecourse, although I bet he is going to tell me it has a greyhound track. I do know, however, that one gets plenty of exercise if one even attempts to walk up and down the pier, which I think is the longest in the United Kingdom—but most normal human beings take a train from one end to the other.
	I want to say something about the Chilcot inquiry. The inquiry, which is completely independent of Government, is examining a range of complex and difficult issues concerning events that ran over a period of about 10 years. Sir John Chilcot wrote to the Prime Minister on 15 June updating him on the inquiry’s position. Since January, the inquiry has received a large proportion of the responses expected from individuals who were given the opportunity to respond to provisional criticisms—something referred to as the Maxwellisation process. The responses have been constructive, and in some cases they have opened up new issues or highlighted evidence not seen before by the inquiry but which the inquiry is now considering with care.
	In the Prime Minister’s reply, he said that he was disappointed that the inquiry was not yet able to provide a timetable for completion of its report; and as soon as Maxwellisation is completed, the Prime Minister expects to receive an update from Sir John on the timescale for the urgent completion of the inquiry. The civil service continues to be under instruction to provide every assistance to the inquiry, and Sir John agreed to meet Sir Jeremy Heywood in accordance with the Prime Minister’s wishes. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are very keen to see this report published. I know that many around the House are as impatient as he is to get it.
	My hon. Friend made a number of different points. On Southend airport and his constituent’s problems with noise pollution, I suggest that if he has not already done so—I am sure he has, as I know he is an assiduous Member—he should contact the aviation Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill).
	On the point about the National Deaf Children’s Society and the allocation of Ofsted inspectors who have experience of the needs of the deaf, the training and allocation of the inspectors is, of course, a matter for Her Majesty’s chief inspector, but I know that this chief inspector takes very seriously the need to ensure that inspectors have the appropriate skills and knowledge to perform their role. I understand that those who inspect specialist provision will have had previous relevant experience in teaching and leadership, and will undertake additional Ofsted training. I am also aware that where a school has a specialist unit for deaf children, inspectors will establish in the pre-inspection conversation with the school whether a British sign language interpreter is required when meetings pupils.
	When it comes to mainstream schools, a requirement for all inspectors to have experience or specialist training in respect of people who are deaf or hearing impaired was seen to raise very significant cost and efficiency issues, as well as practical ones. For that reason, I understand that Ofsted has no plans to make further changes to its arrangements at present.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West referred to the wild animals in circuses Bill. He will know that there was a commitment in our manifesto, and the Government are committed to bringing in this legislation when parliamentary time allows. I am sure he will be pleased to know that the interim licensing scheme is ensuring good welfare for the 18 wild animals being used by the two travelling circuses.
	On the NHS agency staff bill, my hon. Friend will be aware of the action already taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. It is an important issue that probably affects every health trust in all parts of the United Kingdom, so my hon. Friend is right to raise it on behalf of his local hospitals.
	My hon. Friend referred to the promotion of Southend United. I congratulate the team on that. The last time I saw Southend United play was when I was a parliamentary candidate for Wrexham, and I am afraid Southend lost to Wrexham in the Johnstone’s Paint trophy. All I can say is that Wrexham ain’t anywhere near where Southend United is in the football league nowadays.
	I hope I have covered a good number of the points that my hon. Friend raised. He is right to talk about VisitEngland and to want to improve tourism outside London. I am sure he will welcome the fact that as we speak many tourists will be heading up to my constituency to enjoy the Latitude festival. I hope that the weather stays good for them. The sun always shines in Southend, and it usually does in Suffolk, too. I am sure, finally, that other hon. Members will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend, who I am sure will enjoy his investiture at Windsor castle tomorrow.
	The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) raised a number of points. She mentioned open-cast mines. I understand that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, met Carl Sergeant of the Welsh Assembly Government today to discuss issues relating to open-cast mines, including the Parc Slip west site. My hon. Friend has agreed to have further conversations about options to deal with the site and possible sources of funding.
	The hon. Lady raised the issue of continence. I do not know whether the event she mentioned is still happening as we speak—possibly not. I recognise the need for nationwide improvements in continence care. This has led to the continence care programme, which is aligned with the national compassion in practice strategy. NHS England is leading a national programme of work in this area. I am not aware of what is happening in Wales in that regard, but the hon. Lady will appreciate that she can have direct conversations with the appropriate people in the Welsh Assembly Government.
	I understand the hon. Lady’s frustration about tier 4 student visas, because there is a similar issue in my constituency. As I am sure she will recognise, acquiring student visas used to be one of the main ways in which people managed to overstay, and I understand that very careful deliberation is taking place about all the different
	applications that are being made. Nevertheless, I hope that the Home Office will move as quickly as possible to satisfy her local college and, indeed, mine. I am sure that my Home Office colleagues have noted my issue as well.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) asked about Equitable Life. I was proud to be part of a governing party that ensured that compensation was provided, and that further compensation was given to those on pension credit. I understand the point that my hon. Friend made, but I am not aware that the Treasury has any plans to extend the compensation regime any further.
	My hon. Friend also expressed concern that the public health funds given to councils were not being used for their intended purposes. Public Health England continues to issue targets against which councils are measured, but one of the purposes of giving councils public health funding was to address local needs and ensure the provision of not only immediate but long-term public health benefits, and I think that that should be respected. If my hon. Friend wishes to raise any specific local issues, I am sure that he will be able to do so directly, either with my colleagues or with councils themselves.
	The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—or, as she accurately said, “hon. Friend” outside the Chamber —was right to highlight problems relating to traffic jams and productivity. Having checked on my phone earlier, I know that, as we speak, there are just big red lines on the southbound section of the M6 in her constituency. I grew up in Liverpool and some members of my family still live there, while others live in parts of north Wales, so I am a regular traveller up the M6. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration, which is why I do not use that road any more.
	According to the Department for Transport, the entry road at junction 9 has been closed to help to prevent gridlock on local roads in Walsall. If the road were kept open, traffic would have to queue to access the M5 link road, which currently has only one lane available owing to vital repair work on the carriageway. Queues would build up quickly and result in heavy congestion on the M6, which would back up into other roads in Walsall—although the hon. Lady seems to think that that is already happening. I understand that Highways England has discussed the matter in depth with Sandwell and Walsall councils, and that they understand the need to prevent needless congestion for local drivers.
	The hon. Lady said that no work seemed to be being carried out on the entry road, and she was absolutely right. The road has been closed not so that repairs can be carried out, but with a view to preventing gridlock on the M6 and local roads around Walsall. However, I am sure that the authorities will take careful note of what she has said today, and will look at the issue again.
	The hon. Lady mentioned traffic-calming measures in Walstead Road, and the need for a 20 mph zone in Monmouth Road. As she knows, her local council must tackle the issue, but she is has plenty of experience in that regard, and she was right to raise it on behalf of her constituents today.
	As for the education centre that the hon. Lady mentioned, I agree with her that it will be a great result. I was not invited to the opening of the centre, so I feel a bit left out, but I shall be sure to go and see it on Monday.
	The hon. Lady also mentioned the travel subsidy. Unfortunately for me, it is for those outside the M25. Children from Suffolk do not benefit from the subsidy, and I assure the hon. Lady that those in Lowestoft, which is not in my constituency but 130 miles away, do not benefit from it either. As a result, not many schools in my constituency come here. However, I am sure that the excellent new centre will help.
	My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Seema Kennedy) spoke passionately about her role as a breast cancer ambassador. She was right to do so, on behalf of her constituents, but also because of the need to continue to raise awareness. The independent cancer taskforce has developed a five-year strategy for cancer services with the aim of improving survival rates and saving more lives. The strategy will recommend improvements along the cancer pathway, and is expected to be published later this month. We will work with the NHS, charities and patient groups to deliver that.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the Iran nuclear deal. After more than a decade of tough negotiations, we have reached an historic agreement aimed at ensuring that Iran’s nuclear programme is and remains exclusively peaceful, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will be grateful for her praise. She also raised the important issue of the number of older people living alone and the isolation that many of them feel. I am not aware of exactly what we are doing on that, but I am sure that her concerns can be addressed in future Question Time opportunities.
	The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden spoke passionately about the need for social mobility. She referred to the parental link, the privileged professions and the link to private schools. She mentioned early years provision in an intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Her Majesty’s chief inspector of education published the annual report on the early years sector for Parliament on 13 July—just a few days ago. It shows a positive picture overall, welcomes the Government’s major new investment in free childcare for working parents and highlights the fact that the quality of all types of early-years provision is at its highest ever. We are absolutely committed to continuing to help children from disadvantaged backgrounds, which is why we offer 15 hours of completely free childcare.
	On the question of social mobility, I can tell the hon. Lady that one of the things that drives this Government is ensuring that every child has a good early start and goes to a good school. We are passionate about keeping that going, because it matters. We only have one chance of being a child and getting that education, and she is right to champion that issue. I can assure her that this Government are on the side of those who want to get on and do the right thing.
	The hon. Lady talked about the certificate in knowledge of policing now costing £1,000. It is my understanding that special constables, certainly in the Metropolitan police, do not need the certificate. The Met is also open to providing interest-free loans. I do not particularly want to become a tax lawyer at the Dispatch Box, but my personal experience would lead me to expect that people who see the benefit of investing in such a certificate would be able to deduct the cost as a fully allowable expense.

Siobhain McDonagh: Does the Minister not appreciate that the group of young people I was talking about would not have any knowledge of tax relief? They are people who want to become police officers but who have neither the time to arrange such things, because they are working, nor the ability to say to their parents, “Can I have £1,000 so that I can train and apply for this job?” The certificate simply allows them to apply; is does not guarantee them a job.

Therese Coffey: I recognise what the hon. Lady is saying. Perhaps the way out for some people would be to train as a special in the first place. She also mentioned unpaid work experience, and I recognise the points she made. I am pleased that HMRC is cracking down on unpaid internships; that is the right approach for us to take.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) also covered a wide range of subjects. He talked about broadband “not spots” and the sharing of masts. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary made a breakthrough in March in his negotiations with the phone companies, and it is important that that progress should continue. I hope that my hon. Friend is also benefiting from the mobile infrastructure programme.
	My hon. Friend was right to praise the staff at Blackburn hospital for making progress since it received the perhaps not very helpful but nevertheless accurate assessment outlining what needed to be done in the interest of its patients. I also welcome the idea of having a GP surgery at the entrance to the A&E department, to which patients can be sent, if necessary, following triage.
	I am sure that my hon. Friend’s part of the northern powerhouse will feel the benefit of half-hourly trains. I wish I could get the same service for Suffolk; it would be a good thing if we at least had trains coming through. I welcome the fact that the pool in Haslingden is reopening thanks to the work of the community group known as HAPPI. I think I misheard him at first, but he did refer to Pharrell Williams, and “Happy” is one of my favourite karaoke songs. I am sure that HAPPI will be able to think about some of the town centre improvements to which my hon. Friend referred. It is vital that we improve our market towns if we are to have prosperity and great places to live and work, and I am sure that he will be a strong champion of the towns in his constituency.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is no longer in his place, mentioned that he was a fan of country sports, including shooting and fishing. You may have missed this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but he announced that he has a licence to shoot, so I guess we are going to re-christen him 007. He was right about the important role of country sports in not only conservation but jobs for local people.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) raised the case of one of her constituents in respect of the police and the Home Office, so she should follow it up with the Home Secretary via the usual routes. It would be inappropriate for me to comment while legal proceedings are ongoing. The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) highlighted the case of his constituent and mis-selling. He rightly paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for the work he has done. I believe that a substantial amount of action has been taken by the Financial Conduct Authority and reviews are under way. Some £1.9 billion
	has been paid out so far. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says about consequential losses, and he will not be the only Member who has constituents affected in that way. He is right to press on this point and I am sure the Treasury will be listening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the important issue of the violation of human rights in North Korea, a subject that she has championed regularly, and, as she is co-chair of the all-party group on North Korea, I am sure she will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) talked about many rural issues, including the A303, the BT monopoly on broadband—that is what he suggests—and flooding in internal drainage boards. I am sure that now he has been elected as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs he will be able to bring his additional weight to bear on these matters. It is right that we focus on ensuring that rural parts of our country not only get a fair deal but get access to the services and infrastructure we need.
	I wanted to answer a point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips). I will not pretend that I know Lincolnshire very well, although I have family who came from there. I know it is a sparsely populated county, and other rural counties will face similar issues. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government takes seriously issues relating to how rural funding has been addressed. I know that some additional funding was given in order to do that, and I appreciate the campaign to continue that approach. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will be tenacious on this, as I know he is. On fair funding for the police in Lincolnshire, we know that the current model for allocating police funding is complex and out of date. That is why we are undertaking a detailed review of the formula and will be launching a consultation on reforming the current arrangements for allocating funding before the end of next week.
	On my hon. and learned Friend’s point about corruption, we are applying pressure to our international partners, and that is at the heart of this matter. We are working on the UN convention against corruption in partner countries, and with the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund on strengthening financial action taskforces around the globe. We have been taking real leadership in these areas, and DFID works with other G8 and G20 members, and through the UN, to strengthen the international architecture to combat corruption and illicit financial flows. I remind the House that the UK took the lead when we chaired the G8 in 2013, implementing a number of measures which have put the UK in a leadership position.
	The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), who is no longer in her place, was right to raise the worrying events in her constituency last week. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was kind of you to allow a few people to speak who were not here at the start, because it really matters that people have the opportunity to use this Chamber to raise issues on behalf of their constituents. It is my great pleasure to speak to this Chamber. It is only just a year since I joined the Government, and I want also to thank those who have been—

Madeleine Moon: rose—

Therese Coffey: I was about to conclude, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not give way.
	I want to thank everyone who has helped all new Members to settle in and the rest of us to settle back into life. It is a great privilege to be a Member of this House, and I believe that only one person has yet to make their maiden speech. People of the pre-2015 intake are delighted at the number of new people who have joined this House and at the quality of the debate that they are bringing to it. I also want to thank the people who work for me in my constituency and my staff, those before the election and the ones now. Without all our staff, we would not be in a great place in order to serve our constituents in the way we do.
	On that note, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you a great recess, when I am sure you will be working hard in your constituency of Epping Forest, too.

Madeleine Moon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would it be appropriate to ask to put on the record the thanks of everyone who has taken part in this debate for the very full and thorough reply that we have all received from the Deputy Leader of the House. To be honest, I have never heard such a fantastic response from a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and we all owe her a great thank you.

Eleanor Laing: It would not strictly be in order as a point of order to the House, but I am very pleased that the hon. Lady has used that device to make that point. I was about to make it myself on behalf of the House, but I am very glad to have a unanimous congratulations to the Minister for her very full, thorough and thoughtful response to this important debate.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Restoration And Renewal Of The Palace Of Westminster (Joint Committee)

Resolved,
	That this House concurs with the Lords Message of 9 July, that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
	Ordered,
	That a Select Committee of six Members be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords to consider the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.
	That the Committee shall have power–
	(a) to send for persons, papers and records,
	(b) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House,
	(c) to report from time to time,
	(d) to appoint specialist advisers, and
	(e) to adjourn from place to place.
	That the quorum of the committee shall be three.
	That Ms Angela Eagle, Neil Gray, Chris Grayling, Ian Paisley, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg and Mark Tami be members of the Committee.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

European Scrutiny

Ordered,
	That Graham Stringer be a member of the European Scrutiny Committee.—(Jackie Doyle-Price, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

INSURANCE COMPANIES: CHILD ABUSE INQUIRIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Simon Kirby.)

Ann Clwyd: I have campaigned for several decades to expose child abuse in Wales and will continue to do so until all the cover-ups have been exposed and justice has been served. I feel very strongly about this matter because children from my constituency of Cynon Valley in south Wales were taken to Bryn Estyn children’s home in north Wales, 130 miles away from their families and friends. All those young men have been damaged in some way. Their experience affected their future relationships with people. Some of them got into trouble with the law. Of the many young men who gave evidence to the Jillings inquiry, to the police or to the Waterhouse inquiry, a shocking number have committed suicide, have self-harmed or have been killed in mysterious circumstances.
	Many people have expressed their concern at the adverse influence that insurance companies can exert on any inquiry or report into complaints about children in the care of local authorities—though that also applies to other areas such as churches, hospitals and so on. This influence, or cover-up, has been used in many previous inquiries—I am talking about the Kincora children’s home in Ireland, the Cartrefle inquiry in Wales, the Jillings inquiry in Wales and the Waterhouse report in Wales—preventing exposure of the problems, often redacting vital information and so failing publicly to uncover the truth for the alleged victims.
	In February, the BBC’s “File on 4” carried out an investigation that found evidence that local authorities in England and Wales may have allowed fear of losing insurance cover to influence their approach to child abuse inquiries. There were also cases where insurers attempted to suppress information about abuse allegations.
	In Rochdale, the then council leader, Colin Lambert, was shocked by a response from council officers when he proposed an investigation last year into a possible cover-up of child abuse at the Knowl View special school for boys. That involved the alleged sexual assaults by Rochdale’s former MP, the late Cyril Smith and others, in the 1970s, ’80s, and early ’90s. Mr Lambert says he was told that an inquiry could lead to problems with the council’s insurers. He said:
	“I can recall a conversation with officers that this could lead to the insurers withdrawing cover…Holding an actual open inquiry would expose exactly who did know what—and therefore the council probably would have been liable. And that then opens up the insurers to claims.”
	In Bedfordshire, Tim Hulbert, former director of social services, said that insurers “instructed” him on what to do when he was helping set up an inquiry into alleged child abuse at a children’s home in the early 1990s. He said:
	“I had a phone call from the insurers who were anxious to influence the terms of reference of the inquiry so they didn’t actually produce circumstances which would increase the likelihood of claims.”
	At another council, Hereford and Worcester, in the same period, former child protection manager Peter McKelvie said council lawyers warned him not to admit
	the authority’s liability at an inquiry into abuse at Rhydd Court school for boys, near Malvern. He said:
	“I could talk about the abuse that children suffered, but I was not to talk about how it could have been prevented.”
	Mr McKelvie believed that insurance concerns lay behind the instruction.
	There have been a number of inquiries into serious sexual abuse in children’s homes run by the old Clwyd county council. I want to concentrate on two previous inquiry reports whose publication was prevented by the council’s insurers. The first, which became known as the Cartrefle report in 1992, was an investigation undertaken by Detective Inspector Cronin of North Wales police into allegations of sexual abuse at Cartrefle. Later reports found that Cronin undertook a thorough investigation to the best of his abilities, but that the investigation was restricted by a lack of co-operation by children’s services and social services. Cronin’s report found insufficient evidence to undertake a successful prosecution, but it was subsequently submitted to the council.
	In 1992, Clwyd council was told by Municipal Mutual Insurance Ltd, which now operates under the name of Zurich Municipal, that publication of the first report, the Cartrefle inquiry, could amount to a waiver of public interest immunity or privilege and could become a contempt of court case in view of anticipated forthcoming criminal proceedings arising from the abuse.
	The second inquiry, chaired by John Jillings, tried again to investigate abuse in Clwyd care homes after being commissioned by Clwyd county council in 1994. The panel met with considerable opposition over the course of its inquiry. For instance, the then newly appointed North Wales chief constable refused to meet the inquiry or help with access to the police major incident database. Some 130 boxes of material handed over by the council to the police were not made available to the panel. The Jillings inquiry said in 1994:
	“We were disappointed at the apparent impossibility of obtaining a breakdown of data. We are unable to identify the overall extent of the allegations received by the police in the many witness statements which they took.”
	In addition, the council did not allow the inquiry to place a notice in the local press seeking information, because this was considered unacceptable to the insurers. It is interesting that the insurers of the county council were also the insurers of North Wales police.
	This resulted in the need to collect 70 duplicate and additional witness statements. I put a notice in my local paper, and six young men answered the advert. I took detailed statements from four of them who wanted to talk to me. I took a long time to interview them individually, and I found the allegations that they made and the descriptions of their experiences totally emotionally draining. If I felt like that, it is impossible to imagine what their feelings were.
	The Jillings report commissioned at the time laid bare the north Wales child abuse scandal. It found a child care system in which physical and sexual violence were common, from beatings and bullying to indecent assault and rape. Children who complained of abuse were not believed or were punished for making false allegations. The report stated that the number of children who were abused was not clear, but at least 12 former residents were found to have died from unnatural causes.
	The report stated that some staff linked to abuse may have been allowed to resign or retire early. It stated that allegations involving famous names and paedophile rings were beyond its remit and something best addressed by a potential later public inquiry. It concluded that its panel members had considered quitting before publication, due to
	“the considerable constraints placed upon us.”
	The final report’s appendices included limited copies of the key witness statements taken by North Wales police during their earlier investigation.
	Despite such obstructions, the panel stuck to its brief to investigate child care in Clwyd, in the wake of a number of allegations and court cases involving care workers. Most of the allegations covered the period from 1980 to 1988, and a four-year police inquiry saw 2,600 statements taken and 300 cases sent to the Crown Prosecution Service. Eventually, eight men were charged and six were convicted.
	Mr Jillings has made clear what he discovered back then:
	“What we found was horrific and on a significant scale. If the events in children’s homes in North Wales were to be translated into a film, Oliver Twist would seem relatively benign.”
	According to Jillings, the scale of what happened and how it was allowed
	“are a disgrace, and stain on the history of child care in this country.”
	Had the report been published at the time, it would have sounded alarm bells and things would have moved much faster.
	The report was not published because of concerns over libel, and because of legal advice and concerns from the council’s insurers, Municipal Mutual Insurance, which warned that publication would encourage court cases and compensation claims. The report, which was limited to 12 copies only, was virtually unseen by committee or council members and was pulped. The insurers even suggested that the chair of the council’s social services committee, Malcolm King—a brave and determined whistleblower—should be sacked if he spoke out. They wrote to the council:
	“Draconian as it may seem, you may have to consider with the elected members whether they wish to remove him from office if he insists on having the freedom to speak”.
	In November 2012 Malcolm King said:
	“Because it was suppressed, the lessons of the Jillings report were not learned. It was the exchange of financial safety for the safety of real people. It was one of the most shameful parts of recent history.”
	In 1996, just before William Hague announced the Waterhouse inquiry, I tabled four early-day motions to put on the record what had allegedly happened in north Wales, because I had seen the Jillings report. To do that, I had to block parliamentary business for two nights running. As Members can imagine, I got into considerable trouble with my Chief Whip, as well as with Whips from other parties. I re-tabled one EDM in November 2012, which contained the gist of the complaint at the time. Back then, however, the subject disappeared from the Order Paper. The moment the Waterhouse inquiry was announced in Parliament, discussion of these matters in this place was shut down for four years. That is why I
	thought it so important at the time to table the EDMs, so that people would understand the seriousness of the allegations.
	It was not until July 2013 that a redacted version of the Jillings report was finally published, after a request by the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act. Flintshire County Council had previously uncovered one copy of the report in its archive. The six north Wales councils took legal advice on whether it could be made available. That was after demands by myself and many others for the report to be published after the Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal came to light.
	I want to finish by discussing the Waterhouse inquiry. At the time, it was
	“the biggest investigation ever held in Britain into allegations of physical, sexual and emotional abuse of children who passed through the care system”.
	The findings, which were published in February 2000, concluded:
	“Widespread sexual abuse of boys occurred in children’s residential establishments in Clwyd between 1974 and 1990. There were some incidents of sexual abuse of girl residents in these establishments but they were comparatively rare.”
	The Waterhouse inquiry stated that the insurers had
	“acted throughout with the honourable intention”
	of preventing the council from acting in such a way that they would be forced to repudiate liability for claims. However, during the Waterhouse inquiry, the insurers’ representatives accepted that they went too far and
	“that at times the tone of the correspondence on their behalf”—
	that is, the insurers’—
	“was intemperate and went too far in the demands made of the Council. They accepted also that their approach to the dilemma of striking a balance between the duty of a council to seek the truth and identify reforms on one hand and its duty to protect its financial interests on the other, may be open to criticism.”
	The inquiry made 72 recommendations for changes, constituting a massive overhaul of the way in which children in care are dealt with by local councils, social services and the police. Recommendations 71 and 72 called for the Law Commission to investigate the legal issues arising from the clear conflict of interest between insurers and the insured. In July 2004, The Law Commission published a 220-page report, “In the Public Interest: Publication of Local Authority Inquiry Reports”—No. 289. That very thorough report makes two principal recommendations for reform: first, to amend the law of qualified privilege; and secondly, to create a new power of inquiry.The report found that
	“insurers do in practice ‘lean’ in some way on authorities to prevent publication when reports may reveal admissions of liability”.
	It said:
	“The practical difficulty is that insurers and local authorities are in a market. If the risk for the insurers becomes too great, they might either raise premiums so that it is uneconomic for authorities to pay them or they might walk away from the business altogether.”
	The report also points out that although it investigates local authorities and their insurance issues, in principle the same issues can arise in relation to any public body providing a public service, other than central Government. While the Law Commission report was presented to Parliament and accepted, it was not implemented.
	It is a matter of concern that insurance companies can still exert adverse influence on any inquiry or report on complaints about children in the care of local authorities. As Tim Hulbert, former director of social services in Bedfordshire, explained in a report on the BBC’s “File on 4”,
	“There is actually a conflict between the responsibilities of a local authority to safeguard its finances, which represents the interests of the insurers amongst other people, and the responsibility to protect children in whatever circumstances.”
	He went on to say:
	“For that reason, it needs to be dealt with as part of the whole examination of what influences have allowed the cover-ups of child abuse for so long.”
	While we wait to see what comes out of the Macur review, I fear that the Goddard inquiry will not have access to that uncompleted review and may not have access to all previous unredacted local authority inquiry reports.
	It is now high time—I hope the Minister agrees—that the Government implemented the Law Commission’s recommendations and brought forward a Bill to reform insurance company influence. I hope that in future any council that wants to publish a report, on whatever subject, will be protected from its own insurers. This matter has not yet been resolved and needs to be put right.
	Finally, I pay tribute to Alison Taylor, a residential care worker who was one of the first whistleblowers in Gwynedd, and to Councillor Malcolm King, who was the chair of social services at Clwyd County Council. They were both outstandingly brave, and Alison Taylor was sacked because nobody believed her at the time.

Caroline Dinenage: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) on securing this important debate. She has been absolutely tireless in her efforts to expose the barriers to justice for children who were abused while in the care of the state. She speaks today with as much passion as ever about this tragic issue, and I commend her for bringing it to our attention once again.
	Child sexual abuse is of course a despicable crime that this Government are absolutely determined to eradicate. It is a fundamental right of children and young people that they should be protected from such abuse.
	The right hon. Lady spoke very eloquently about her concerns that local authority inquiries into abuse in care homes in the former county of Clwyd and other areas of the country have been barred from publication so as not to jeopardise councils’ insurance cover. She is absolutely right that that is completely unacceptable. I wholeheartedly agree with her that it is terrible if inquiries do not see the light of day. That is true whether these are cases into child abuse or into failings in any other institution. Not only is it a completely unacceptable waste of money and resources for an inquiry to be carried out and not published, but, much more importantly, it is unforgivable if the failure to publish an inquiry means that we do not learn the lessons from the atrocities of the past and that more children suffer in the future. In my response, I hope to be able to demonstrate that the Government have addressed her concerns, and that we are learning from the past to make sure that children are protected both now and in the future.
	I fully understand the right hon. Lady’s disappointment that the then Government failed to take forward recommendations in the Law Commission’s 2004 report. That report followed recommendations from the Waterhouse inquiry into child abuse in north Wales children’s homes. She outlined a lot of what the Law Commission said. As she pointed out, although its recommendation was accepted when it was presented to Parliament, it was never implemented. However, there have since been a number of changes, in both the insurance industry and the statutory framework for inquiries, which I will outline.
	I fully appreciate the right hon. Lady’s view that it is not appropriate for insurers to influence the terms of reference, the processes or the outcomes of inquiries that local authorities commission; nor is it appropriate for them to influence the content or publication of the final reports. As I understand it, that is also the view of the Association of British Insurers.
	I understand that many standard insurance contracts across a range of product lines contain a clause requiring the insured not to admit liability or to settle a claim until the insurer has provided written permission. One of the reasons for that is to ensure sufficient time to establish the facts in an individual claim properly.
	I have checked the position with my counterparts at the Treasury. Their view is that, at present, there is no indication that any insurer has broken any regulatory rules. That said, the Government are determined that financial services firms be subject to appropriate regulation. The Financial Conduct Authority regulates the insurance industry in the UK and sets the standards required of insurance firms in relation to their business. It also supervises the conduct of insurers and will take action against insurers that are found to be in breach of the FCA rules.
	Furthermore, the Association of British Insurers has informed me that it is working with its members to create clear guidance and to make sure that an insurer’s role in these sensitive processes is very clearly understood. The insurance industry recognises the sensitivities of such child abuse inquiries for the survivors of abuse, as well as their importance in investigating what went wrong and what lessons can be learned.
	As well as better regulation of the insurance industry since the right hon. Lady first became involved with these issues, the whole statutory framework for inquiries has changed beyond recognition both in local government and in central Government inquiries. She asked for clarification about whether previous redacted reports would be available to the new inquiries. As they were statutory inquiries, the reports will indeed be available.
	The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has the power to direct a local inquiry to be held into the way that a local authority has carried out its functions if he is satisfied that an authority has failed to comply with its duties. In such local inquiries, witnesses can be compelled to attend and give evidence on oath. In central Government, we now have the Inquiries Act 2005, which repealed the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921, under which the Waterhouse inquiry was originally set up. The 2005 Act provides a much more solid statutory framework for inquiries, to make them swifter, more transparent, less costly, and more effective at finding facts and making practical recommendations. It also aims to restore public confidence
	in inquiries, particularly given the concerns following previous inquiries such as that into Bloody Sunday. It clearly sets out the respective roles of inquiry chairs and Ministers, and it stipulates that proceedings should be in public unless there are good reasons to restrict public access.
	Nowadays, public inquiries rightly expect to receive full and frank co-operation from all parties. They regularly take steps to ensure that the evidence gathering process, and subsequent recommendations, are free from undue influence and retain public confidence. Public inquiries are a vital means of holding public bodies to account and providing answers to some of the most troubling events, and nowhere is that more necessary than in relation to child sexual abuse.
	The Home Secretary’s independent inquiry into historical child sexual abuse will investigate whether, and to what extent, public bodies and non-state institutions have taken seriously their duty to protect children in England and Wales. The inquiry will challenge institutions and individuals, without fear or favour, to get to the truth. It has been established under the Inquiries Act 2005 and so can compel witnesses and call for evidence. There are no time limits on what the inquiry can consider—it is free to consider evidence from any point in the past without restrictions.
	The Government very much welcome the fact that Justice Lowell Goddard—a highly experienced and respected High Court judge from New Zealand—is leading this inquiry. Victims and survivors were instrumental in setting that up, and they will be at the centre of the inquiry’s work as it moves forward. We want nothing to stand in the way of the inquiry. This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get to the truth, expose what has gone wrong in the past and learn lessons for the future. In addition to the Goddard inquiry, in March 2015 the Prime Minister launched the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report. We are getting on with delivering the actions in that report.
	As the right hon. Lady knows, Lady Justice Macur is carrying out a review into the scope of the Waterhouse inquiry and whether any specific allegations of child abuse falling within the terms of reference were not investigated. I know that the right hon. Lady has been interested in that review from the outset. Like the Goddard inquiry, that review is entirely independent of Government, and Lady Justice Macur made it clear from the outset that her review would be thorough and that she would draw no conclusions until she had considered all the evidence. We look forward to receiving that report in due course.
	There have also been major changes in the way that children’s homes are run since the right hon. Lady first became involved in these issues. Children’s homes provide care for some of the most vulnerable, traumatised and challenging children and young people in the country. Many homes provide excellent care, but we want to make sure that all homes provide high-quality care that meets each child’s individual needs and enables them to live their life to the full and reach their full potential.
	The legislative and regulatory framework around the regulation of children’s homes is very different today from how it was in the past. Changes over the past 12 years include a comprehensive programme of legislation that aims effectively to safeguard all children living away from home in residential and foster care. For example,
	all children’s homes and fostering services must now be regulated and inspected by Ofsted, and all people working in them must undergo enhanced disclosure checks. Last year, the Government reformed care planning and children’s homes regulations to improve the safety of children in residential care. That included strengthening safeguards when children are placed out of area, and when children go missing from care.
	Earlier this year, the Government introduced new children’s homes regulations, which include quality standards that all children’s homes must meet for their children. One of those is the protection of children standard, which clearly sets out what staff must do to ensure that children are protected from harm and enabled to keep themselves safe—a lot of change, and all for the better.
	The right hon. Lady highlighted a sensitive issue that goes to the heart of society, and society must surely be judged by the way that it looks after its children. The historical sexual abuse of those trusted to the care of
	children’s homes in north Wales and in foster care was truly shocking. More recently, we have seen the systemic and appalling abuse of children in Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford and elsewhere, and we know that this crime affects communities up and down the country.
	Sir Ronald Waterhouse’s report in 2000 led to the Law Commission report and recommendations, but nothing was really done about the issue. Today, there is a real will to tackle this stain on our society. Many of the issues that the right hon. Lady has highlighted are now being addressed by initiatives across Whitehall.
	The right hon. Lady has worked utterly tirelessly on this issue and I give her every credit for doing so. I have every confidence that Justice Lowell Goddard’s inquiry into historic child sexual abuse will both allay her concerns about transparency and finally fully expose the truth behind the troubling events that she has been fighting to uncover for so many years.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.